The Decline of the Mobile Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.cdixon.org/2014/04/07/the-decline-of-the-mobile-web/ <comment><USER3> It seems 'mobile apps' are like Flash was in the 90's, basically a way to take full control over the UX to achieve some particular goal. Given the preponderance of such apps it seems as if home screens are due for a make over that looks more like iPod music libraries than 'desktop.' Basically something which supports dozens if not hundreds of apps on a device.

<comment><USER4> The entirety of current web design practice is taking full control over the UX. Gone are the days when you sent a GET and got an html document back, the most interactive element of which was a textarea box.

The other reason flash was a pain, incidentally, was because it was easy to bog down a client computer with overzealous flash stuff... just like the current tendency to use javascript to do all your rendering and computation clientside -- exactly when more people than ever before are browsing on pocket devices with far less horsepower than traditional computing devices.

<comment><USER5> Rendering on the client side is fast, especially on the newer high end devices like the S4 & the IPhone5. It will only continue to get faster.

The biggest issues are bandwidth/asset file sizes & using heavy-weight frameworks. They bog down the UX on mobile devices.

On my current project, I'm using browserify, Backbone, jQuery, & compiled Handlebars. The same codebase supports rendering on the web server, rendering on the web client, mobile web, & apps using PhoneGap. Things seem to be performing well, even on the S2.

Note: there are strange performance issues with the S4 stock browser.

<comment><USER4> Rendering on the client side is not even possible with the vast majority of handheld devices in use around the world. The biggest issues are, as they have always been, the fact that commercial interests have triumphed over any kind of inclusive standard practice.

Please understand I'm not passing judgment on the matter -- but I would like to highlight the relatively elite status of people with quad-core telephones.

<comment><USER5> I understand. But then, those low end phones are using something like Symbian.

I actually do handle the low end phones by rendering a basic html page on the server. Same codebase :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think Facebook is an instructive example here. They tried for a long time to make their native app (for Android, anyway) just a wrapper over the mobile web client, but they could never get the performance all the way there. They went native and have seen great results. They resisted as long as they could but eventually the products had to diverge.

I'd say 80% of developers who choose native do so for performance, and 20% do it because the app store and home screen placement is better for branding and content discovery than just sticking up your website on a server somewhere.

I think there's room for some sort of hybrid product but I'm not sure what it would look like. Maybe a mobile browser with super-aggressive caching (like not even a HEAD request for JS and CSS) and the ability to improve performance for the foreground page to the point where it's near-native. I'd use that for the mobile websites that I use less frequently, and continue to download the native apps for the things I use every day.

<comment><USER7> Sure, native apps have better performance on mobile. But the same thing is true on desktop, yet the web somehow stays popular on desktop. That suggests that the behavior of platform owners (Apple and Google) is the real reason for the popularity of apps on mobile, and performance is just a distraction.

<comment><USER8> Isn't the whole performance discussion based on synchronizing versus not synchronizing? There's no reason to synchronize on a Desktop as one can assume there's wifi available.

<comment><USER9> I think that sync vs not syncing tends to be cyclical.

We all started using Gmail because synchronising to a mail server is annoying and PCs where slow. Ten years later machines have a fast internet connection, 1TB HDD as standard and, maybe an SSD. When you have to wait 10 seconds just to view an attachment syncing makes a lot of sense. But generating a thumbnail of that same PDF would be much better handled pre-emptively in the cloud.

The problem is believing that one approach is better for every function of an app. Few user machines will ever have a guaranteed large amount of bandwidth. This is just as true on desktop machines as mobile, but less acknowledged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am I in the minority that I don't want an app for every. bloody. webpage. I visit?

<comment><USER11> Nope, I don't want that either.

I also don't want every mobile webpage I visit to use some slow janky JavaScript framework to emulate native app behavior either because in my experience the user experience for those are universally worse than just trying to be a relatively normal web page (perhaps with some media queries for image sizes, etc) and letting the mobile web browser do its thing.

<comment><USER12> I have limited mobile/smartphone/app experience.

It feels that Desktop apps are sorely neglected. Spotify for example feels really ancient, a weird UI for such a popular product. I only assume the mobile versions are more logical and easier to use. I wouldn't want to immitate the desktop versions. So I read your comment as somethnig like the immitation of Apple's cover flow. And yes in that way I agree.

Do you think it's the lack of standardisation of menuing/navigation/paging in web pages/sites that isn't helping matters?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wrote about this problem here ([http://serv.github.io/blog/2014/02/20/unfortunate-state- of-m...](http://serv.github.io/blog/2014/02/20/unfortunate-state-of-mobile- web/)). Mobile Web sucks because there's an incentive problem. No one really has strong incentive to make mobile web better. Performance issues are largely an effect of this root incentive problem. (edited from "cause" to "effect")

\- Users have a strong preconceived notion that websites on mobile just suck compared to native apps.

\- Management allocates less financial and developer resources into mobile web because users prefer native app strongly.

\- Developers time and effort are stretched thin for web because management focus more on native app teams.

The mobile web will continue to lag behind native app for a while.

<comment><USER14> Your assessment seems to suggest this is a perception issue. But even the best mobile websites really are second-tier to solid (not even top tier) native apps. And as smartphones become more and more sophisticated sensor platforms, this will become even more problematic.

<comment><USER15> _And as smartphones become more and more sophisticated sensor platforms, this will become even more problematic._

Not if mobile browsers keep up with these more sophisticated platforms. The problem (as the OP outlined) is that there are decreasing incentives people like Apple to keep improving their mobile browser. They hold the keys, and they want apps.

<comment><USER16> I agree that this is a significant factor in the problem, but it is far from the only one.

The problems with the mobile web are far broader than that. Being tied to JavaScript (a language whose semantics remove significant optimisation opportunities, unless you write in something else and target via asm.js), a UI layer that doesn't cleanly map to being hardware accelerated, and missing or incomplete APIs for everything from Bluetooth to push messaging.

If you look at the Chrome APIs (that is the stuff Chrome apps get access to) there is neat stuff, and they are attacking it slowly enough that what APIs they produce are sane, and this is clearly what they see as the future. The problem is the world moves faster than that, and just as the web people are beginning to even grok mobile they're going to be smacked around the head by an absolute explosion of tiny devices.

<comment><USER15> _Being tied to JavaScript (a language whose semantics remove significant optimisation opportunities, unless you write in something else and target via asm.js)_

In a world where V8 exists, I'm not so sure. JS running on the main thread absolutely _is_ a problem, and Web Workers are a clunky solution.

 _a UI layer that doesn 't cleanly map to being hardware accelerated_

Agreed this part is tricky. But existing hardware acceleration on mobile web isn't that bad.

 _missing or incomplete APIs for everything from Bluetooth to push messaging._

Mozilla is working on all this for Firefox OS, but of course no-one has incentive to agree with them.

<comment><USER17> > JS running on the main thread absolutely is a problem, and Web Workers are a > clunky solution.

Chrome is moving towards out-of-process iframes, which should help alleviate many performance issues (ads janking your page) and give you new capability (basically web workers with a full DOM). [http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/oop- ifra...](http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/oop-iframes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm of the view this is a lot of fuss about nothing. Big deal if people prefer apps over the "open" web. The reality is a large number of people use the likes of MSN and Yahoo as web home pages, and unless you were linked to from them they were unlikely to find you. The app launcher situation is an improvement over that.

The big problem is that dipping your toes into something via a website (assuming you don't hit an auth wall) is easier than finding then downloading an app.

Besides, a lot of these "web" apps are just things like Facebook or G+ which are no more open to scraping or any of the other supposed benefits of an open web than your average iOS or Android mobile clients are. The web has morphed into an unholy mix of the worst qualities of everything else.

<comment><USER18> It's not a scrapeability problem; it's a freedom problem. The article mentions this. Why should the app stores decide what can and cannot be on our phones, and why should they add a 30% tax on everything that is published on mobile? There are a lot of claims that the tech industry is disrupting the big music and books businesses, for the benefit of consumers, but these new players are acting like the middlemen they are replacing.

The web reduces the distance between content consumers and producers, cutting out the middleman. It's not a perfect solution. Standards are greatly influenced by commercial interests. But it's better than a locked-down app store oligopoly.

<comment><USER19> >Why should the app stores decide what can and cannot be on our phones

This is not a freedom problem. You have the freedom to buy an Android device, and you have the freedom to install any apk you want without ever even opening the Google app store. Moreover, Google even allows 3rd party app stores on their devices.

And of course these new players are acting as middlemen, but you are forgetting the fundamental difference, and this is what has changed the game. Anybody can publish their app, virtually for free. There are no gatekeepers, who decide what gets published and what doesn't, anymore.

<comment><USER20>
        There are no gatekeepers, who decide what gets published
        and what doesn't, anymore.

Apple routinely rejects applications to their App store. Have you not read any of the numerous stories where app devs get denied?

        This is not a freedom problem. You have the freedom to
        buy an Android device, and you have the freedom to install
        any apk you want without ever even opening the Google app
        store.

The freedom to do something like "install any app via .apk" may exist, but it is still a "freedom problem" when there's a large barrier to installing an .apk on your device. I'm speculating of course, but real world anecdotes would lead me to believe that a very small % of the population even knows what an APK is.

<comment><USER19> >Apple routinely rejects applications to their App store. Have you not read any of the numerous stories where app devs get denied?

Yes, I am aware. And yes, you are right. But the gatekeeping on the app stores has nothing to do with the music, movie or even book industry. Could they be more lenient? Yes, but you can't denied that the game has indeed changed.

>I'm speculating of course, but real world anecdotes would lead me to believe that a very small % of the population even knows what an APK is.

I would say that you are right again. And you are also right, maybe this is a debate about freedom, but personally, I don't consider having to go to settings, security and checking a box, a large barrier to freedom. If you actually seek freedom, it's only a few (acceptable) steps away.

<comment><USER21> Sure, you have the freedom to install any apps you want.

However, if I am starting a business, and most people don't know how to exercise that freedom to install an app from somewhere else, I am not going to get very far in my business if this is what is required for my end users to use my program. Therefore, I am not going to invest time in developing anything that requires that sort of installation, making it practically the same as not being able to do that at all.

<comment><USER19> But you make it sound more like an education problem than a freedom problem.

The issue is not that people are not allowed to install apks, the problem is that people don't know how to exercise that freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Security could become a big factor in web vs native. For example, I don't trust the facebook native app. I've used both the web and native versions and the native version is smoother and better. But I don't trust facebook. There's a lot of personal information on mobile phones these days and I don't want facebook accessing that data. For me, using the web version is much safer.

And random apps on the app store from unknown developers? I trust those even less. I may install one if the list of permissions is very restricted and reasonable. But I don't like spending time looking at the permissions and trying to figure out if it's ok.

Another example is banking apps. I remember there was news a while ago that many banking apps were not handling passwords properly. If I use the web, I can see the SSL lock icon, inspect the certificate, and know that it's properly handled. I can't do that for a native app.

<comment><USER23> Same thing for me - I uninstalled Facebook's app after hearing about how LinkedIN's new app was grabbing people's contact list without their knowledge.

Fool me once…

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The Flurry stats [[http://blog.flurry.com/bid/109749/Apps-Solidify- Leadership-S...](http://blog.flurry.com/bid/109749/Apps-Solidify-Leadership- Six-Years-into-the-Mobile-Revolution)] show 32% of user time is spent gaming; 17% on facebook; 9.5% on messaging and 4% on youtube - that's 62% for those of you keeping count.

That doesn't look like the end of the mobile web - that just looks like people spending a lot of time gaming and on facebook.

<comment><USER25> Indeed, I think it depends a lot on the task.

It's a little dated now, but a Pew study found people overwhelming consume news from websites versus apps: [http://www.journalism.org/2012/10/01/app-vs- browser-debate/](http://www.journalism.org/2012/10/01/app-vs-browser-debate/)

I also trust data from Pew considerably more than from Flurry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > It is also why so many mobile websites are broken.

Many mobile websites _are_ broken. On a mobile phone, both websites and "mobile websites" are broken.

If anyone is looking for a money-making idea, here's a website I use all the time -

[http://maps.huge.info/zip.htm](http://maps.huge.info/zip.htm)

On my desktop it takes me five seconds to use. On my Android HTC One it takes me maybe five minutes to use.

If someone made an equivalent Android app, or a functional mobile web site of course I'd use it. Actually - I'm an Android programmer and could do it myself, but am busy with other things at the moment to do it singlehandedly.

That is just one web site. Many web sites I use are designed for the desktop, and work horribly on smartphones. No wonder people go running for apps when the functionality pops up in one.

</comment><comment><USER27> While performance is often cited as the main reason for having a native app, I think that one of the biggest reasons to prefer native apps is usability. More concretely I can see the following:

\- A web app/site is often an app within an app. This means that what usually works as an interface to this device is no longer true, or rather different. The gestures are different, how the app is treating them is different and so on.

\- On the performance side the web apps suffer from UI delivery problem - <USER2> site must deliver both the app it self and the data for which you use this app. A native app have to work with the data only, and its not restricted to be always connected with the web.

\- Another reason is that although the same on the surface mobile is actually shifting our usage patterns. Our usage is far less consistent, more spaced out, under more conditions and with smaller screens. The native apps work well here because their components are thought out to work under these conditions and of course tested for this.

\- Finally because of the usage patterns we see some native apps more versed to cover specific use cases. This differs from the mobile web which just have everything the normal web has, but tested to work on mobile.

Some of this points of course can be tackled by html5 wrapped web apps. But this approach comes with own set of limitations and problems - we are compromising on both openness and performance sides. So while I want the mobile web to work, for now I think that native apps are winning.

<comment><USER28> Your browser can cache a web app to be used offline. Plenty of Chrome apps are packaged this way. Firefox also has an option to do this, and Firefox OS can work without an internet connection. An HTML5 app is just source code obtained from a website that's run through a VM, and may or may not connect to a back- end (usually does though).

The problem isn't the web, it's how many web developers choose to use it. If you want to really know how powerful the web is, check out many of the WebGL demos and game demos out there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Maybe it's because you don't typically see an "app" that is just completely unusable on your device.

When the vast majority of simple websites (not even applications) have _terrible_ experiences on mobile web browsers, is it really any surprise that users prefer using an app that at least puts effort into being usable?

HN and at least 80% of the linked articles I read on my commute have terrible mobile interfaces.

I really don't see the "performance" argument. It's unlikely anything you build natively is going to compete with a browser's raw HTML/CSS performance. That's something they do _incredibly_ well. And really, that's all a static blog needs to be. I don't need your comments. I don't need your ads. I don't need your HTTPS. I don't need your massively broken up application that requires a GET for every asset on the page (and the 20+ JS files you've decided not to package together, none of which is needed). I don't need your parallax effects, your hover/click listeners, your scroll events, your damn lightboxes, or your image rotators.

At the end of the day, I don't use the mobile web very much. It's not because mobile web sucks. It's because nearly everything on the mobile web sucks.

<comment><USER30> More than anything else, I wish simple web pages were vogue.

Complex web pages are a pain to maintain. They're a huge liability, really. And there's really no need for them to be so complex.

The only reason I can see is people who have little understanding of how web pages are constructed are usually the ones in charge of designing them.

... Maybe I should transition over to web design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The web was originally a means to collaboratively publish helpful documentation stacks and research papers. It was and still is rooted in "document objects", not apps and certainly not monetization. To recoup the costs of authoring these help files, we have to rent out real estate in the margins.

Apps predated this model in more or less the same form we currently find them, with monetization inherent in the distribution model.

If native apps are dominating web pages in some medium e.g. portables and wearables, maybe that means the audience of that medium isn't inclined to create links or author documents, so isn't well served by the web model there. Specialized apps will tend to serve their specific needs better, especially if they can be monetized easily.

There will always be a place for the web, and for the dedicated app. "Web apps" were and are a bit of a hack, although often a very useful one. Creativity can be channeled into all of these media, and the barriers to entry are lowering for all of them. It's a great time to be online. As long as IP remains ubiquitous, I imagine there will always be a market outside of the AOLs, Apple Stores, Google Stores etc.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think this article is about web sites, but if you're a game developer, it feels like google and apple are actively trying to kill off the web option, or at least don't care about it. It's easy to find complaints about how audio is terrible in HTML5 on mobile devices, but its been that way for years. I still don't think you can play two sounds simultaneously on mobile safari (eg: background music and a sound effect).

<comment><USER28> Audio has also been spotty on Linux for years. I know that at least Chrome can play 2 sounds at once (music + sound effects in a game)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The problem is that the large majority of people, even the youth of today[0], are incredibly un-tech savvy. Unless your website or game is packaged into a simple app you just can't rely on people to visit it or even find it in the first place.

[0] [http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use- comput...](http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/)

<comment><USER34> Yes, that's exactly the problem. Kids that are born in the 90ies and younger see computer "gadgets" as given. They don't try to play around with it and discover its functionality. They just play casual games on smartphones and video consoles. They hate computer science classes in school, etc. And as a result they are incredibly un-tech savvy. But it's also the elder generation (60+) that just bought their first computer device (smartphones/tablets).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> web/app is not zero sum.

There is a wide overlap in functionality, but if the experience via mobile browser is sufficient, users won't care. They may even enjoy not having to curate yet another app.

App Pros: Engagement lock-in Richer experiences (performance, native advantages)

App Cons: Dev costs Fragmentation costs Dependency on ecosystem(s) App release cycle + cross platform synchro of dev efforts

<comment><USER36> Agreed. I used to be much more strident about pushing open web over native apps. But my opinion has changed, I think of the open web as the APIs behind both the apps and browsers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Reality is that the mobile web experience currently is worse than native mobile apps. No matter how much you want "open", or how much faster your latest web-mobile framework is, right now people still prefer the app experience. That might change, but i suspect it will take some time.

<comment><USER38> 5" or larger iphone may change US iphone users attitude on app vs web decision..On my tablet and 6" phablet I avoid apps as much as I can.. Since I disagree with you I'm curious of your smartphone size..

<comment><USER37> I want the mobile web to succeed as much as the next guy here, i am just talking about the general smartphone using population. But even for me, things like twitter/facebook/youtube are just a better experience in app form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Part of the reason why people prefer "apps" to mobile websites is speed.

Mobile website, infact normal websites are large, clunky and not designed for fingers, or high latency.

</comment><comment><USER40> I fully appreciate the problem with not interoperable application and the large benefits of a fully URIed web; however, making progress in usability requires a flexibility that this scheme doesn't match, hence the success not just of mobile apps, but Ajax before them -- success that occasionally went back to its origin and reassigned URI throughout (thank you GMail).

However, one thing is not true in what he says:

> Apps have a rich-get-richer dynamic

Yes, indeed, but so do websites; portalisation, or more simply the shear number of sites people visit spontaneously is not less than the number of apps they use regularly: three to five versus a dozen. There is a problem at the lower end of that spectrum: while the sites big enough overall to make an be maintained it are actually more common than apps that can do the same, users tend to spend an almost exclusive share their time in said ten-to-fifteen apps, and that challenges discoverability, _i.e._ the renewal of that class. That's where the issue is, not in how many apps cover 80% of usage, or how many first letters people type before their browser auto-complete the rest.

(On that, I wonder how much the lack of success of Readability has to do with starting with the same letter as Reddit)

</comment><comment><USER41> I think this is the price we pay for hewing to the party line of only permitting non-breaking incremental changes on the Web.

Would this still be the case if Web development wasn't a broken matrix of browser and OS versions powered by a language which people are constantly trying to paper over with abstractions? (Seriously, it's like a person you'd only have sex with as long as you'd put a paper bag over their head.)

<comment><USER42> That's the price to pay for having an open platform indeed. Several players, and none of them control the platform.

But that's the whole point of the web. If it was broken into 2 platforms, each fully controlled by a company, we would see quicker innovation. But then we'd have all the drawbacks of apps, so what's the point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> "This is why you see so many popups and banners on mobile websites that try to get you to download apps. It is also why so many mobile websites are broken."

Huh, is that surprising? They break their mobile sites and expect people to still use them more than apps? This is self fulfulling: if you make a sucky website, people will NOT use it. Make a wonderful mobile site and people will not care about your apps.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's difficult to reconcile the Flurry stats with the fact that most blogs / publishers are seeing a higher percentage of their traffic come from mobile web (>50% in many cases).

One reason could be that their stats don't include mobile web usage within apps (i.e. FB / Twitter). That discounts a lot of my own browsing behavior.

<comment><USER45> Also, as someone pointed out in the comments of the article, if you count video games in the "time spent in apps", then really it's the gaming consoles and devices that are losing out, not mobile websites, so the discrepancy between web and apps is overstated.

As always, look at the data for your own website/service before deciding which path to take.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Cached URL: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.cdi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.cdixon.org/2014/04/07/the- decline-of-the-mobile-web/&es_sm=91&strip=0)

(It's erroring out in production.)

<comment><USER47> Here's the text-only cached URL (your link wouldn't load for me because it was blocked on stylesheets or whatever)

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.cdi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.cdixon.org/2014/04/07/the- decline-of-the-mobile-web/&es_sm=91&strip=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> What I am more interested in is whether the usage of the mobile web is on a decline in absolute numbers or only relative to apps.

Anyone got the numbers for that?

Also this might be a stupid question but are Safari and Chrome considered apps in this context? I.e. do they count as app usages or web usage?

</comment><comment><USER49> cached: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fk- RAMh...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fk- RAMhr0VUJ:www.cdixon.org/2014/04/07/the-decline-of-the-mobile- web/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

And text:

People are spending more time on mobile vs desktop:

And more of their mobile time using apps, not the web:

This is a worrisome trend for the web. Mobile is the future. What wins mobile, wins the Internet. Right now, apps are winning and the web is losing.

Moreover, there are signs that it will only get worse. Ask any web company and they will tell you that they value app users more than web users. This is why you see so many popups and banners on mobile websites that try to get you to download apps. It is also why so many mobile websites are broken. Resources are going to app development over web development. As the mobile web UX further deteriorates, the momentum toward apps will only increase.

The likely end state is the web becomes a niche product used for things like 1) trying a service before you download the app, 2) consuming long tail content (e.g. link to a niche blog from Twitter or Facebook feed).

This will hurt long-term innovation from a number of reasons:

1) Apps have a rich-get-richer dynamic that favors the status quo over new innovations. Popular apps get home screen placement, get used more, get ranked higher in app stores, make more money, can pay more for distribution, etc. The end state will probably be like cable TV – a few dominant channels/apps that sit on users' home screens and everything else relegated to lower tiers or irrelevance.

2) Apps are heavily controlled by the dominant app stores owners, Apple and Google. Google and Apple control what apps are allowed to exist, how apps are built, what apps get promoted, and charge a 30% tax on revenues.

Most worrisome: they reject entire classes of apps without stated reasons or allowing for recourse (e.g. Apple has rejected all apps related to Bitcoin). The open architecture of the web led to an incredible era of experimentation. Many startups are controversial when they are first founded. What if AOL or some other central gatekeeper had controlled the web, and developers had to ask permission to create Google, Youtube, eBay, Paypal, Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Sadly, this is where we're headed on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER50> Which is easier to code: a mobile app or a mobile website? The tools are much better for the mobile app and it is much easier to do cool stuff. Plus the testing time is much quicker. Path of least resistance and biggest wow.

<comment><USER51> I don't agree that mobile apps are easier to build than mobile websites. Certainly not for anyone with a background in building for the web.

<comment><USER50> Which particular development tools do you use that are easier than the mobile equivalents?

<comment><USER52> I find HTML/CSS works very well with Android screen size chaos. Also when coding iOS I have to drastically switch context between a web based backend and a frankenstein language(s?) from 80s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Open your phone and take note of the apps it has installed on it. How many of those apps are basics CRUD wrappers? Phones will only continue to get faster but these types of apps will stop pushing the envelope at some point. There's only so many fancy transparent swiping swooshing crap you can add to an app before you start to detract from the experience. At some point, mobile web apps will be just as performing as most native apps (we may already be there) at which point people will start to balk at the ridiculousness of having to write 3+ versions of the same damn CRUD app

</comment><comment><USER53> We recently rewrote our mobile website to be a much more modern experience ( [http://m.trulia.com](http://m.trulia.com) ). Our ability to easily deploy and test ideas while behaving almost exactly like our iOS / Android apps is quite powerful. It's also added a lot to the value of a web visitor, which is important given the SEO nature of our content.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that the mobile web is only now getting it's feet under it. My main concern is that Apple/Google prefer app improvements over improving their browsers.

<comment><USER54> I just went to m.trulia.com on firefox on android on HTC One 4GLTE and got sent to the "Download our free app" (in orange button). When I clicked on Continue to mobile Site at the top (green), The site was dirt slow loading photos of a bunch of homes. (granted, my network sucks where I am... but that's the point: bad network)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I usually discover web content through social sites like Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter. On mobile, such sites have built-in browsers, and I suspect that most "app" traffic is actually of this nature.

</comment><comment><USER56> The web is for information. It was not made to emulate desktop or mobile applications.

That said. Information can mean many things. And there will be hybrids.

You can do offline apps in HTML+CSS+JS right now, but it's a PITA:

var a = document.createElement("a");

a.appendChild(document.createTextNode("hacker news");

a.setAttribute("href", "[https://news.ycombinator.com/");](https://news.ycombinator.com/"\);)

If your app contains information, it's best suited for the www. But if it only contains a canvas, it's more suited as a native app.

</comment><comment><USER57> As an app developer, I like this trend. More time on mobile and more time in apps. Both good things for me.

That being said, I think the more time in apps vs mobile web might be a bit misleading. How many apps out there have webviews taking you to the web for various reasons? I can only imagine this time is counted as app time for the graph in the article, but it's really web time for all intents and purposes.

And frankly, I think that this is a much better user experience in a lot of ways. the facebook native app is much better than the web version is and even really could be (at least at this point). Much of what happens in that app though is clicking on websites to random articles around the web, and that is done in a webview inside the app. I like the app over the website, and i definitely don't want it to kick me out to safari while I'm in the app. This is a good ux, but I think it skews the data in this article. How many other apps have similar functionality?

All that being said, I strongly prefer the experience of native apps over the web, but I'm only interested in using the app if it's something I'm going to use all the time. If I need your site 1 time ever, I'm not wasting time downloading the app. If I use it every day, I absolutely would rather have an app. For everyone saying "Hell no I don't want your app", I suspect the above is actually true for a significant majority of people. 1 time use people don't want app. Repeated use people do want app.

</comment><comment><USER58> Really need more data on this besides a set from flurry -- I'm not convinced that mobile web is declining just from that one graph... (Especially since flurry is aimed at app developers.)

</comment><comment><USER59> The mobile web experience is just not good enough _yet_.

But we've seen this pattern multiple times over the past 15+ years, the open web by its very nature needs time to catch up.

It doesn't mean that the current state of affairs is final.

It took the open web over a decade to start making proprietary "rich media" solutions like Flash obsolete. These things take time.

Open web will never be at the lead of innovation, it just provides the foundation for it. Also, most mobile apps still use the web to be networked. The browser is not the web.

</comment><comment><USER60> I think OP is living in a bubble. I don't use more than a few apps everyday, and I do almost 90% of my online reading in my desktop. I spend 8 hours a day in front of a computer at work. The only time I have to poke around with my smartphone is after work, and a hour of that is spent in a subway with no online connection.

I mean, I guess if you have FU money, don't work for the man, and travel to wherever you want with WiFi, sure, you probably spend more time poking with apps than you do in a desktop.

</comment><comment><USER61> Discovery, usage, and feedback are all more polished in native apps rather than on mobile web. Mobile web is the wild west in terms of experience and more of a stepping stone until you get frustrated enough to download the app or ditch that service altogether if they don't have a native app. Mobile web has lost many of its benefits due to some very distinct reasons.

Lack a stable Internet connection? Native wins

Home screen apps vs Bookmarks in browser? Native wins

Ease of discovery? Native wins

Ideal user experience? Native wins

Mobile web is lagging behind for good reason.

<comment><USER62> _> Lack a stable Internet connection? Native wins_

HTML5 offline storage should let a mobile-oriented site store a fair bit of data offline, to avoid having to go out and fetch everything anew all the time. It's just that few web developers design that way b/c we've all been spoiled by desktop users' broadband connections.

 _> Home screen apps vs Bookmarks in browser? Native wins_

My Galaxy S3 lets me set bookmarks for sites on the home screen (and anywhere else in the launcher I would wish to).

 _> Ease of discovery? Native wins_

Slogging through ten million clones in an app store counts as easy discovery? OK.

 _> Ideal user experience? Native wins_

I'm not sure about that. We heard the same noise during the 2000s about how users were going to prefer "rich client" apps to in-browser apps, because the rich client apps would be able to respect their platform's native look and feel. And then it turned out that "I can access it from anywhere without installing anything" was something they cared about a lot more.

<comment><USER61> Those are all very fair points. Although devs and tech consumers may be able to accomplish these things, the typical consumer doesn't understand or care about these things. Dixon's article was focusing more on the end user side of things and it's very clear what the demand is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> While I'd love to see web replace native apps, I don't see that happening in the near future. With the kind of innovation happening in the mobile space (iBeacon, Android Wear, Background Fetch etc.) it's probably impossible for the web to keep up.

But there is certainly a bubble in the app space which will bust sooner or later. Not sure what will be the next big thing though. Web does not seem like a candidate.

</comment><comment><USER64> We are missing important metrics here. Mobile is getting more short intervals of usage. We are connecting more often throughout our day were we otherwise would not access a desktop. We need to consider the baseline of usage historically to project a more accurate vector of platform use. Are we just using the internet more in general? My bet is yes. This data is basically incomplete.

</comment><comment><USER65> The web may or may not be in decline, but why worry about it? Clients that consume services (be it web browsers, or apps or whatever) have always been in a state of flux. The web was hot, now apps are, then something else will be, then something else after that, ad infinitum. It sucks for developers, but then again things have always kinda sucked for developers.

</comment><comment><USER66> If app is the best hire for the job then so be it. Ditto web when it is best. However the two dominant gatekeeper paradigm is scary.

</comment><comment><USER67> Or... people don't make mobile specific websites, they make a website that adapts to mobile and label it responsive.

Also, I don't goto the web for anything I would do with an app generally speaking. Camera, calendars.

The device makers don't have a huge incentive to improve web browsers either, they have a store in which they want to take a piece of your earnings.

</comment><comment><USER68> The key issue is that mobile apps tend to be task oriented. A lot of web companies (like FB) are not transitioning into app studios by breaking down a monolithic site into set of mobile apps that deliver a single feature/accomplish a single task.

If the open web were to be redefined along those lines, I dont see why users wont use that.

</comment><comment><USER69> Agree in general. This is worrisome. However, (1) is most probably exaggerated. On mobile, you have an unbelievably broad selection, this will never become an oligopoly. But big players will get bigger. Anyway, Firefox OS may become a promising alternative, althought it comes with some of the same downsides.

</comment><comment><USER70> Even if apps totally won, it wouldn't mean that the mobile web lost. 100% mobile app usage wouldn't imply 0% mobile web usage.

Someone might spend way more time in Facebook.app than Safari.app, but within that, they might spend most of their time on pages linked to from their Facebook feed.

</comment><comment><USER71> Companies care about user engagement, and that is driven by two major things: transactional notifications, and easy access. Apps provide both, while the web is a second class citizen on mobiles. Consider that web apps still cannot send In-App Notifications and can't perform In-App Purchases. So, even if I do create a kick-ass web app, I would have to rely on — wait for it — SMS to deliver notifications to my users. I would have to rely on people manually typing in numbers in order to invite people, so viral spreading won't be so great either. In short, even if we wanted to create a mobile web app instead — and we do — the ecosystem will select for the native apps in the long run.

And Apple, at least, is keeping things that way on purpose. Consider this dig at Google by the master himself, Steve Jobs — a few years ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWd- xXfIEpE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWd-xXfIEpE)

He was saying "for some reason" but really the reasons for choosing apps over web are enabled largely by these platforms themselves. Because they are more locked-down, they won't allow too much integration, and it's harder to get web apps to catch on.

That said, three years ago I really became passionate about the problem of decentralizing the consumer internet again. We can see with git and other tools how distributed workflows are better in many ways than centralized ones. The internet was originally designed to be decentralized, with no single point of failure, but there's a strong tendency for services to crop up and use network effects to amass lots of users. VC firms have a thesis to invest in such companies. While this is true, the future is in distributed computing, like WordPress for blogs or Git for version control.

Shameless plug: Qbix (my company) has been hard at work the last 3 years building an open, web-based platform that takes advantage of PhoneGap (Cordova) and emerging containers like MacGap and now WinJS! Write once, deploy anywhere, as a social app with contacts / roles / permissions / notifications / etc. working across all devices and integrated. So developers can focus on building the app and get best practices for virality and engagement (without annoying people) out of the box.

[http://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/a-new-kind-of- platfor...](http://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/a-new-kind-of-platform/)

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

</comment><comment><USER72> when you will be able to integrate web into mobile OS then we will be talking. Mobile just in a browser window is unexciting and cumbersome. Mobile Internet, I wouldn't call it so much the web but more like integrated experience can bring so much more to the mobile platform. but it would take another Apple with Steve Jobs to implement it(IMO). Basically it is unploughed field and investment need is of investment of epic proportion of research and monetary kind. The whole look and feel of mobile OSes has to change. Mobile Internet is kind of boring when it is contrained to just one of little boxes on the screen, if mobile has access to OS services that would another thing.

my 2c

</comment><comment><USER73> It's deeply ironic that much of Silicon Valley spent the 90's obsessed that Microsoft would become the gate-keeper to the Internet and or Web, and be able to levy a toll accordingly.

And here we are, with Silicon Valley as the gate-keeper instead.

</comment><comment><USER74> So I keep seeing this point:

"Web applications on the desktop are way ahead of where they used to be. In a few years, it'll be the same for mobile web apps... they'll catch up to the native performance."

But this always seems to overlook another question...

"Where will native desktop and mobile apps be in a few years?"

I have no doubt that mobile web apps will catch up to the performance of CURRENT native apps. However, I absolutely doubt they'll be up to par with the native standard of their time. Web apps progress, but so do native. Worse of all (best of all?) it puts users into the habit and comfort of native and makes the standard for web increase.

</comment><comment><USER75> I don't think it changes the numbers too much but do these numbers consider web usage inside apps like Facebook and gmail?

Apps have an enormous advantage when it comes to acces to the device like photos, camera, address book and notifications.

</comment><comment><USER76> Down for anyone else?

        [an error occurred while processing this directive]

</comment><comment><USER77> One thing that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned are app updates. Updating apps is a pain for the user and a bottleneck for devs. This alone seems like a compelling reason to choose mobile web over native.

</comment><comment><USER78> Seems relevant: "App-pocalypse Now" by Jeff Atwood [http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse- now/](http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse-now/)

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm all for web apps but I have to admit, when I'm using an app frequently I always download the native app. In most cases it's just a better, faster and smoother experience.

</comment><comment><USER79> This is both bad and good.

Good: It might stop the rot of websites turning their whole site into a mobile version with fat-finger buttons and massive text, if websites become the means of interacting for people with real computers again.

Bad: Apps are a far bigger security risk, and prevent casual interaction (i.e. following a link onto something, then going somewhere else) - having an app means you're in a selfcontained site and are kept there until you close the app and open another.

</comment><comment><USER80> We'll see a third platform emerge in the next few years that combines the best of native apps and the mobile web.

It will probably be based on cards as the unit of interaction.

<comment><USER81> Yes! Time to relearn HyperCard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> There is a point here that many websites don't need an app, but have them as part of a fad.

However, on the flip side as wearable tech becomes more and more prevalent (think Google Glass, but also things like Jawbone), it make a lot of sense that more and more of our internet usage goes via these interfaces which are inherently non-web.

<comment><USER83> I've coded for google glass, and I don't think our internet usage will go via wearable things -- at least not ones like glass.

Information displayed needs to be understandable at a glance and relevant to the very here and now. Usable real estate is extremely limited in glass and interaction is limited to voice, simple gestures against the right frame, and GPS/accelerometer. So doing interaction with any amount of complexity gets frustrating and annoying very quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I spend an hour a day on Twitter during my Caltrain commute.

I click on links that open up a UIWebView and read articles on the web.

Does that count as one hour in an "app"? In reality, it's more like 20% in the app and 80% following shared web links.

</comment><comment><USER85> Sure, mobile apps will replace web apps. Way better performance. But who's gonna download an app to read a wikipedia article? The web ain't just apps people. It's supposed to be for documents.

</comment><comment><USER86> The web is a chaotic mess and deserves the ignorance. We can't agree on standards and propagate such shortcomings and much more to the user. We have distracted ourselves with crap like browser wars, popup ads, "enable javascript for this page to work" for too long a time.

I don't see why we have to put our users through the web, just because its easy for us to develop or deliver for it.

Consumers have taken to apps like never before. Asking them to regress is stupidity. Take the simplest case of loss of internet connection. Browsers and browser apps continue to be terrible when your million dollar "UX" is replaced with an irresponsible "Page cannot be displayed" and no concept of offline experience.

Fuck browsers and mobile web. Please let's not go back.

</comment><comment><USER87> So the Eternal September is going to end after all.

</comment><comment><USER88> The key word here is "web"

Web - interconnections, links.

You don't get that with apps.

</comment><comment><USER89> Mobile websites can not send push notifications, use location information, receive iBeacon broadcasts, etc.

To provide a state of the art user experience on mobile devices, you need to write an app.

<comment><USER15> They can use location information. And gyroscope and accelerometer.

The issue is that apps are diverting attention - otherwise mobile browsers might have implemented push notifications for pages by now. Firefox OS does it, and Safari on desktop has notifications. It's close, but no-one is shouting at the manufacturers to push it over the line.

<comment><USER90> HTML5 is catching up though, the Device orientation API, getUserMedia API, Notification API, etc. bring native app functionality to websites.

<comment><USER15> Right but what incentive does Apple have to implement that spec?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> In my opinion mobile web is yet to arrive, we have just gotten HTML5 standards finalized only about an year ago.

While native has had roughly seven years lead when it comes to providing quality online experience, web apps can beat native easily. And no it's not that web apps or web development or talent for mobile web development is limited or is the bottleneck.

The bottleneck is usually the vendors and support of standards in the existing breed of mobile browsers that destroy the web experience.

For example, Apple introduced this shitty non-standard swipe gesture feature on iPhone Safari/iOS7 that breaks so many things:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18889666/ios-7-is- there-a...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18889666/ios-7-is-there-a-way- to-disable-the-swipe-back-and-forward-functionality-in-sa)

But I think this will change with more competition among tablets and mobiles. IMHO, it is normal for the web to catch up a little later; but when it does native will find it hard to breath.

<comment><USER92> The "HTML5 will catch up" argument is a common fallacy. It assumes native apps are standing still, when in fact they are moving rapidly forward. If anything, the gap continues to grow. The web isn't even in their cross-hairs, there's just so much effort for each native platform to keep surging ahead of the others.

If you think Android and iOS are "done", consider where they are headed and you can see they are barely getting started. Consider input such as speed, physical gestures, breathing, brain activity. All manner of form factors. Integration with the "real world" such as Nest and Square. Wearables, cars, home appliances ...

Whatever early-stage web APIs exist for these things are _vastly_ , _tragically_ , fragmented across the various HTML5 runtimes.

The "other web", that of HTTP and REST and JSON and cloud services, is a freaking wonder of engineering and a giant productivity boost to developers of any client. But the UI side of the web is continuing to trail for now. Competition among tablets and mobiles will help native apps as much as it will help the web.

<comment><USER49> > It assumes native apps are standing still, when in fact they are moving > rapidly forward. If anything, the gap continues to grow.

I'm sorry, but there are only so many ways you can display a CRUD application. I don't see the next versions of Twitter and Instagram pushing the hardware much more than they are today..

<comment><USER92> People said the same about terminal-based applications when windows came along. It just takes some imagination Do you really think Instagram and Twitter will be running on the same form factors and look+feel the same in 10 years?

Twitter and Instagram as photo-heavy apps could eventually support 3D models of the world, drone photography, wearables etc (Twitter already has a Glass app).

Same for their notifications - all sorts are possible on watches, speech, car dashboards.

And that's just assuming they stand still functionally.

As for CRUD apps, there's loads of innovation happening. Look at Amazon's new Dash device as one of many examples that change the interaction style from clicking on a web page to speech + real-world scanning. I'm guessing it's not powered by HTML5.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why baseball benched Microsoft Silverlight - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10212843-93.html <comment><USER2> The HTML 5 video and audio tags are coming - it may be a long time before they get here, but when they finally do will there still be a need for Flash or Silverlight? Anything else besides video that they do can be done with Javascript. Will we still need them in five years?

<comment><USER3> I doubt the video tag will support DRM or more advanced Flash features like dynamic streaming. Most sites don't need these features, but those that do will keep using Flash.

<comment><USER4> It's my understanding that the video tag will support arbitrary back-end video processors. There's no reason that the video stream cannot be encrypted with some DRM scheme that's decrypted by the backend. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

<comment><USER2> I think that's correct. The current draft specifies that an implementation (browser) may support any video codec or no codec at all (e.g. lynx). There's a lot going into the determination of which codec to use if more than one might be appropriate. As wmf mentioned about - DRM and dynamic streaming, I'm wondering the same but I think that can be handled by appropriate codecs. (Which may be just moving the plug-in issue to be one involving codecs, but let's hope popular browsers will ship with sufficiently useful ones.)

The whatwg draft is really quite interesting...

[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video- and...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-and-audio- codecs-for-video-elements)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Q: What did you see in Flash that impressed you?_

 _Bowman: You see several things. You see a high-grade product that's in some form on 99 percent of the browsers. You've got something that's got mass usage. Secondly you see with Adobe a company committed to the customer experience in video with the Flash Player. We see a partner that continues to invest in their product. They have the same desire that we do. They want the Flash Player to be the best thing anybody has ever seen and we want that. When you partner with people like that, it's not a philosophical discussion. We know where we want to be now how do we get there._

So once we filter out all the market-speak it pretty much boils down to that Flash has a better market-penetration.

<comment><USER6> Maybe. But as a paying MLB.tv customer, the Silverlight implementation was TERRIBLE. Despite having all year to make improvements, the thing never worked even remotely correctly. I scolded myself as I signed up this year, but there really aren't any other options. To my surprise, I started up the first game today (go Tribe), and couldn't believe how much the player improved. Judging by how many more (functioning) features and polish are in the Flash player than were in the Silverlight player, I suspect it wasn't just market penetration.

<comment><USER7> Adobe has more at stake in seeing Flash succeed than MS does in seeing Silverlight succeed. This may be reflected by the amount of Adobe support and development committed to the Flash platform. I'm sure the Silverlight team is way smaller.

<comment><USER8> True, but unfortunately adobe is stuck using AS3 on their VM; silverlight gets to leverage all the .net work.

Hopefully they'll add threads to flash sometime in the future, that is the most limiting factor facing it today.

<comment><USER9> I cringe to think what the developers at my work would do with threads in the Flash VM. I'd just as soon keep a single-threaded model.

<comment><USER8> The single thread model has some serious limitations. For instance maybe you would like to load some images & then popup a component containing them. In a threaded world, you can have synchronous communication where it just waits till the download is complete before loading what depends on it. Right now you have to register callbacks, sure that's not too tough, but chaining like that makes it more difficult than it should be.

download -> componentA > componentB > ComponentC

whereas it might be easier to just go:

CompnentA(file.download());

instead of file.Download (CompACallback, FaultCallback);

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A nail in silverlight's coffin.

<comment><USER11> Doubt it. My video experiences with the last Olympics and CBS NCAA coverage were pretty good. If the next Olympics and next year's NCAA drops Silverlight in favor of Flash, then you could say that it probably won't take off.

Flash has 5+ years headstart than Silverlight. Flash has also seen its share of technical issues and limitations.

With regards to penetration rate, most PCs come with Silverlight pre-installed so this won't be much of an issue in the future.</comment></comment>


Black Swans bust IT budgets - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14677143

<comment><USER2> My impression is software budget overages are too common to be called Black Swans. According to Taleb, there are two kinds of Black Swans. One comes from underestimating the uncommon event. (Example: Having three ten-sigma events in a week) The other comes from missing the risk entirely. (Example: A casino having risk management systems for the slots and tables, but not for an employee who doesn't submit the forms to the gaming comission)

With IT overages, most of the issues are known: \- Scope control \- Lack of talented staff \- Lack of end user engagement \- Lack of sponsorship \- Poor understanding of external dependencies and integration requirements \- Lack of objective metrics of progress

When so many projects go over, it isn't a Black Swan problem, it's a White Swan problem.</comment>


Show HN: Mkserver mk2 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/klaxa/mkvserver_mk2 <comment><USER2> Does this let you have people jump in mid-stream and have everyone synced up? Very interesting. It would be cool to have multiple formats supported too.

<comment><AUTHOR> It lets people jump in mid-stream, however syncing clients is quite troublesome, since anyone can just pause their stream. It cannot really be enforced server-side to display the exact frame at the exact time. Maybe it can be combined with syncplay[0].

[0] [http://syncplay.pl/](http://syncplay.pl/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So is this like barebone version of Helix streaming server? (Or, something you can make a YouTube from)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm surprised I have never heard of the Helix streaming server before. However, a look at the supported formats makes me think matroska is not supported. This was the absolute goal of this project: stream in the matroska format. The reason is that most Anime and other subtitled videos are distributed in matroska, because it can mux SubStation Alpha subtitles. I wanted to be able to live stream Anime with my friends without anyone having to download it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice! I've been looking for something like this for ages

<comment><USER5> me too ^^ this is really good work</comment></comment>


Bend It, Charge It, Dunk It: Graphene, the Material of Tomorrow - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/bend-it-charge-it-dunk-it-graphene-the-material-of-tomorrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=technology&_r=1& <comment><USER2> Why is this article on the front page of HN? Graphene is old news as are all the "it could revolutionize ....." statements. Nothing is imminent to market, but it sure seems like someone wants to acquire investments. No MVP's that can do anything w/o all that sweet investment manna? For something which lends itself to soooooo many applications, we can't even get the mundane out the door?

I may be long-term bullish, but I'm done with the hype.

Let's call it a gold rush and ambiguously tie it to the last monstrous movement - semiconductors. Maybe we should throw some other buzz in about quantum computers and sensor-laden clothing - because everybody has been clamoring to wire up their hoodies.

It, of course, doesn't even mention the toxicity risks. Asbestos is one helluva insulator. Asbestos would compliment graphene very well.

Only missing a link to arxiv.

<comment><USER3> While not sexy pencil's are arguably the oldest use of Graphene.

Edit: The argument has to do with the relative smoothness of writing relating to the thickness of the graphite layers laid down. Grapine being ideal.

<comment><USER4> No, pencils are not a single atom thick layer of graphite.

<comment><USER3> The marks they make can be.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diy-graphene- how-t...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diy-graphene-how-to-make- carbon-layers-with-sticky-tape/)

It apparently also has some use as a lubricant which has something to do with why #2 pencils are smoother than normal. Ed: Graphite also acts as a lubricant but #2 pencils relative smoothness has something to do with laying down more layers of graphine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of my excitement in the early 2000's about Holographic disc techonology:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc)

It seems like it's never coming. It is a technology before its time.

<comment><USER6> Mostly because we found technology that's better. I think memristors, If Graphene never happens because we find better things... i'm not going to complain :D

<comment><USER7> Yeah, what happened to memristors? I didn't hear a lot about them anymore since the last breakthrough a few years ago :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They fail to mention it causes hypegasms :-) But more seriously, it is going to change the world over time, and carbon based electronics. But I am not sure why this article other than to mention Samsung's press releases ([http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/news/newsIrRead.do?ne...](http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/news/newsIrRead.do?news_ctgry=irnewsrelease&news_seq=20176)) or to just give out a tech 'feel good' vibe.

</comment><comment><USER9> When and if graphene is in production in new products: What comes after that? We're always building something harder, better, faster, stronger (sorry I can't help myself). Can we even fathom something beyond graphene? Or do we plateau? Charging a cell phone in 15 minutes is awesome, but what about instantly? Shoot, lets just embed cell phones into our bodies, and we'll power them with our cells!

</comment><comment><USER10> I am looking forward to this actually being used. It has been a big deal for a while and all we've got so far is... a condom?

It's much more affordable now. What would be really cool is if the iWatch had this (not planning on buying one, but still)

<comment><USER11> Samsung's YOUM flexible display uses graphene, I believe, but I don't think they've used that in a product yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if graphene devices could be fabricated using 3D printers. Now, that would be a game changer even if their performance was below silicon devices.

</comment><comment><USER13> More graphene goodness from the MIT Tech Review today:

[http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512496/first- graphene-a...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512496/first-graphene- audio-speaker-easily-outperforms-traditional-designs/)

Apparently it makes great speakers...

</comment><comment><USER14> So, if Graphene is so awesome, what are the problems with its application? So far it seems it's still mostly in research. From a HN front page article I expect a little more than simply listing research efforts etc.

<comment><USER15> Hopefully someone more up to speed can correct me/chinme in. As I understand it. It's the cost/difficulty of production of quality graphene structures.

Lake anything else (carbon fibers, semi-conductors) the cost of production starts very high and is only cost effective in specific targeted use cases. For example, Graphene is currently used in equipment in DNA Labs.

As companies develop better manufacturing techniques you get high cost corporate and high income early adopter products like the Samsung flex display.

Over the next 20 to 40 years manufacturing it will get cheaper, and as manufacturing equipment for graphene starts being readily available you'll see grapheme start showing up everywhere. It'll get to the point where it's in everything but nobody talks about it. Everything will continue to get smaller and/or more efficient.

<comment><USER13> You're right. The reason by the NYT is excited about it now is that Samsung recently announced a "breakthrough" in manufacturing which lowers the costs:

[http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/04/samsung-claims-a- graphene-...](http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/04/samsung-claims-a-graphene- breakthough-which-may-be-huge-for-future-wearables/)

The article's not new, but the NYT isn't in the business of tech scoops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Something comes to mind. Read some old science fiction. The Asimov Foundation series provides good examples. Fission/atomic power was all the range when the book were written. It reads as hopi

<comment><USER17> _" Graphene could change the electronics industry, ushering in flexible devices, supercharged quantum computers, electronic clothing and computers that can interface with the cells in your body."_

<comment><USER7> Nice, all the current emerging tech hypes in one sentence, including of course quantum computing :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Benjamin, I want to say one word to you. Just one word … "

"Yes … What is is, Mr. McGuire?"

"Plastics."

        http://youtu.be/PSxihhBzCjk

</comment><comment><USER19> Looking forward to see cross country skiing poles made from graphene :-)

</comment><comment><USER20> does anyone know where one can buy this material for experiments etc?

<comment><USER21> A quick LMGTFY led me to "Graphene Supermarket":

[https://graphene-supermarket.com/home.php](https://graphene- supermarket.com/home.php)

<comment><USER20> appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Didn't Daft Punk write a song called Technologic about graphene? ;)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozitqabi6UM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozitqabi6UM)

</comment><comment><USER23> Wooow! this is freaking awesome if this really can happen!

</comment><comment><USER24> Does it cure cancer too?

<comment><USER25> No, it causes it..

<comment><USER26> Is there any peer reviewed study supporting this claim?

<comment><USER27> Not agreeing with it, but I assume the op is referring to the claims about graphene fibers acting in a similar fashion to asbestos.

[http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/February/graphen...](http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/February/graphene- inhaled-lungs.asp)

But there's widespread disagreement:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechno...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechnology/when- you-keep-nanotubes-short-theyre-not-like-asbestos)

<comment><USER26> Thanks for posting these links. They do help framing the debate on carcinogenic effects of Graphene better than hearsay.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Cliff Notes For Blogs - <AUTHOR>

Thinking of starting a blog, which has a simple goal: Cliff Notes For Blogs (or a blog for the ADD). Two simple updates a day that condenses all the information you would need on the most important topics into short 2-3 sentence summaries.
Found the need to do this after a) I wanted to get back into blogging b) I needed a service that would let me not have to spend hours a day reading blogs.
Targeted towards two types of readers:
a) Those with information overload and could use a good summary of everything, so time frees up.
b) Those who want to be up to date and in the know, but dont have time or the know how to read all the important tech blogs.
Thoughts? Anything I can clarify?
This is not a company, but literally a blog itself.  Also planning on linking back to one good analysis on each topic and one good long post (ie techcrunch, webware,etc.) <comment><USER2> I subscribe to a magazine called The Week that operates on this premise. It's a weekly that summarizes top stories (general news, editorials, columns, business, tech, reviews of art, music, books, films, theater, etc.) by drawing a few key sentences and quotes from multiple mainstream sources.

They have a daily online version here: <http://www.theweekdaily.com/>

None of the stories are generally more than 4 paragraphs or about 12-15 sentences and usually draw on 3-4 sources with varying takes on an issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> what drove you to subscribe? simplicitiy i assume?

do you think something less than 4 paragraphs, more like 4-5 sentences would work?

<comment><USER2> In the world of Twitter ... even 4-5 characters could work. ;)

I actually subscribed because I had expiring airline miles that I had to use up on something and it was one of the options. That said, I'm planning to renew. I've found that I am so overloaded with information on a daily basis that the shorter summaries are a lot easier to keep up with -- and because the summaries quote their sources anything that I want to delve into deeper I already have a short list of good articles to check out.

(Side note: I'm a tech blogger, so I spend my week immersed in tech news and The Week magazine allows me to catch up on all the other news I may have missed, which is nice.)

<comment><AUTHOR> haha, please don't encourage a twitter competitor with a 4-5 character limit. :-o

Yup, the goal is to make the consumption of tech news simpler. Definite links back to other valuable sources + analysis for those who want to dig in deeper. Not sure if you saw it earlier in the thread, but this site Brijit is similar to TheWeek. Sadly, they just closed shop.

Wait... you mean there's "other news" out there besides tech?

<comment><USER2> Ah yes, I remember Brijit. Even longer ago, in the late 90s/early 00s there was a site called BriefMe that did email newsletters based around the same concept. Similarly, it also closed up shop -- possibly for the same reason (it was paying people $5 per short summary and I guess couldn't break even on the other end).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I suppose it depends entirely on the execution but for me, sites like Hacker News, Techmeme, Digg, Reddit, et al have this space pretty well covered.

The core problem I see arising: If you're doing this manually (and solo) and you don't want to "have to spend hours a day reading blogs," the odds of coming up with good content from varying sources is a bit unlikely, no?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hacker news + Digg sum up what you "should" be reading, but you still have to read a ton to get all of it taken care of. Techmeme, sums up what you should read and the 20 articles like it. Think of cuili. Big takeaways were:

\- Former google employees \- Bigger index by x amount \- 33 mil in venture funding. \- Search results arent that accurate for reasons xyz

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're good at summarizing stuff, I'm running a little contest on Squeezed Books:-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting site. Reminds me of the book summary clubs id see on flights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of Brijit, which provided 100-word summaries of articles in major newspapers and magazines. Unfortunately, it ran out of money, because its business model involved paying people to write the summaries.

<comment><AUTHOR> ive eventually thought about opening it to user submissions. The incentive is a link back to their site + name credit.

<comment><USER5> better yet, do it via trackback or whatever variant is hip those days

<comment><AUTHOR> trackback to submit?

<comment><USER5> yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One way to make this more successful is to make sure high school students are forced to read the blogs you're covering, which is why Cliffs Notes and SparkNotes are successful.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, that's a very very good point worth mentioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> interesting idea. i think it would work just fine outside the tech industry, though.

<comment><USER8> Yes, exactly my thought. In tech industry, I'd say the problem you are aiming at is solved reasonably well already - Techmeme, HN, Friendfeed, or even slashdot...I just skimm what is new and that is it.

But I don't want to discourage you - it could work, if you will find your own angle, have good editing skills and willing to do it regularly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Techmeme,etc. all sum up what you should be reading, not what it is. Techmeme/HN tells you _where to find the news easily_ , not _what the news is easily_.

<comment><USER8> Can you give some example, then?

<comment><AUTHOR> You visit the site, there are two updates per day posted. Each update has the most important headlines of the past 12 hours. Example summary or story:

Scrabulous Gets Shut Down on Facebook

-North America ONLY , not international -Decision made by Scrabulous devs, NOT FACEBOOK -Culmination of Hasbro suit filed last week on DMCA grounds -EA has US rights + real networks with international rights

<comment><USER9> Is the goal to represent news in the twitter format?

<comment><AUTHOR> no, not at all. closest thing to twitter might be the brevity and simplicity. it will be longer than 140 chars tho.

<comment><USER9> It could be a Greasemonkey script which would attach available summaries to links on HN, reddit. Summaries could be picked up from your blog or from comments with special tag "Summary:

"

EDIT: I mean m/^Summary:\n\n/m

<comment><AUTHOR> I like it actually. Had thought about that later on in terms of scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> <pedantic>It's Cliff _s_ Notes</pedantic>

/ducks

I do fancy the idea, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> haha, really? i didnt know that. My apologies to Cliff.

Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> We shall call it "Mazy".

</comment><comment><USER12> or get really, really good at skim reading.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure that works to some degree, but it still takes a ton more time and organization.

Think of this as a blog reading hack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Kind of like whatthefuckdoineedtoknow.com?

<comment><AUTHOR> haha, funny read.</comment></comment>


Twitter seems to be testing an edit feature - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/13/21435468/twitter-edit-testing-replies-tweets <comment><USER2> Looks like it's just cached text in the text field.</comment>


How I Detect Fake News - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@timoreilly/how-i-detect-fake-news-ebe455d9d4a7 <comment><USER2> This paragraph is a good summary of the content of the authors own perspective on news, and verification of "fake news".

>Snopes, which uses human editors for fact checking, does a good job, but they can't find every fake news story. Still, when a reputable fact-checking organization like Snopes or Politifact identifies a story as false, that's a pretty good sign. And in fact, the fake news story has been taken down on Facebook, presumably in response.

</comment><comment><USER3> All this anger against 'fake' news reminded of a book I started reading years ago but never finished because I wanted to spend more time reading news.

[https://www.amazon.com/How-News-Makes-Dumb- Information/dp/08...](https://www.amazon.com/How-News-Makes-Dumb- Information/dp/0830822038)

Basically, news (as defined in our modern era) makes us stupid. And I happen to agree...</comment>


Blind Faith: 35 Percent of Consumers Want iPhone 5, Sight Unseen - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/07/blind-faith-iphone5/ <comment><USER2> It's not blind faith if the previous 4 versions were very good. It's quite reasonable to expect the next version to be even better. This is especially so if it's not just the product line with a track record of quality but rather most of the company's products having a record of quality. This is also not a sign of a cult following as the article suggests.

<comment><USER3> You've already forgotten about the iPhone 4 antennae fiasco haven't you :) ? (Also the overheating problem with the earlier 3GS among other issues.)

<comment><USER4> Yes, he has. In fact, _most_ people have forgotten about these things. They were either quickly fixed or not the huge problem they were made out to be.

But, by all means, show me another smartphone that hasn't had similar user experience issues on release.

<comment><USER3> >>>> "Yes, he has. In fact, most people have forgotten about these things."

So in effect the "Blind Faith" title is correct, no ?

<comment><USER4> If what you quoted is the only part of my statement that you read, I can see how you reached that conclusion.

It's not "blind faith" to decide that your initial response was an overreaction and eventually forget that you even held that opinion.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Aaron Swartz Died Innocent — Here Is the Evidence - <AUTHOR> http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here-is-the-evidence <comment><USER2> In the US justice system, one is technically always innocent until judged guilty. He had only just begun the legal process. Sadly, the American system has evolved into an administrative model where confessing to something is mandatory to avoid a pernicious experience.

My sincere condolences to his friends and family.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. This leads to weird things like the R. Budd Dwyer incident. He was a Pennsylvania Treasurer who was accused of a crime. He called a press conference and shot himself on stage. Hence, he died without being sentenced (and before being fired), and thus his family got a full pension.

The band Filter's song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" is about the incident.

<comment><USER4> Wikipedia says Dwyer was convicted, but not sentenced, when he committed suicide. However, he was not yet removed from office, which is what allowed his family to receive the pension.

<comment><USER3> Yeah (I edited it based on wikipedia a while ago...).

I'd still say "accused", even though he was convicted, because subsequent evidence (and the fact that he shot himself in the head) largely points to him actually having been innocent.

The "criminal lawyer" Smith was to blame here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."

Ortiz is an idiot. Unfortunately she is also a US Attorney.

<comment><USER6>
        It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.

I would like to ask Ms. Ortiz if AaronSw indeed did "give away" or "steal" from the victim (JSTOR in this case)? If not, can we ask her to stop riding the high horse?

<comment><USER7> He did not. He returned the data to JSTOR. Later JSTOR gave away much of the data themselves

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the matter of his guilt or innocence here isn't the matter: The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed. It FUNDAMENTALLY perverts our right to a trial.

The difference between 30 year sentence and 1-5 is HUGE and is exploitative to charge a person for 20 crimes to generate that perspective 30 year sentence just to get them to agree to 1-5. Especially with the high 90s conviction rate of federal prosecutors (which is in part generated by the plea bargaining system, in which witnesses had 5-10x sentences thrown at them if they do not testify). Additionally, we should reinstate a functional golden platter rule (right now expenses for illegal activity are non deductible, so people can't really pay taxes on illegal activity, paying taxes on the full sale price of say, Pot) and make many drug related criminals stop money laundering. This would garner more taxes, and take a LARGE burden off the courts and prisons.

Plea bargaining is illegal most places. We should very much tone down the overcharging (throwing the book at them, charging them for every violation, etc), especially at the federal level. Additionally, parole requires acceptance of guilt in most places, even if sent to prison via a coercive plea bargain. Maintaining one's innocence is a no go if you want out "on time".

<comment><USER2> "The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed"

That is much easier to type that the effect. Any ideas on moving forward? #OWS taught me social change takes a decade.

I am not trolling, I would like to see change. I hope you spread the word.

<comment><USER8> I honestly see the end of some prohibition fixing many of these issues, so I think supporting that will neuter some of the drug prosecutions.

As it becomes more "good" that prohibition ends, prosecutors who are still fighting for it to not will look worse then will become more easy to reform.

Also, the president can change policy on this pretty quickly. Overcharging isn't required by law, merely enforcing the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored > and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted > as much to us.

irrelevant. the computers aaron gained unlawful access to were JSTOR's, not MIT's

furthermore, dishonest. MIT tried banning his computer from the network multiple times

> Aaron did not "hack" the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of > "hack". Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered > the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them

just because JSTOR's website sucks doesn't mean its okay to abuse it. JSTOR's terms of service limit the amount of downloads individuals can make. if you forget to lock your door, does it make it okay for someone to take things from your house?

> Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity

just not true. they put a security camera in the closet where his computer was. when he came in to grab his laptop, he used his bike helmet as a mask so he couldn't be identified.

also, they banned his computer multiple times from the network.

<comment><USER10> It's dishonest to apply the word 'unlawful' with the implication that statutory law (federal _penal code_ ) was violated. Service abuse is a civil matter, it doesn't concern the state.

<comment><USER9> except its not dishonest. one of the charges was wire fraud. from the article:

> Wire Fraud. The Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, prohibits a scheme to > gain "property" by false pretenses. This strikes me as a pretty strong > charge here. The false pretenses are provided by the false identification > and spoofing of Swartz' IP address and MAC address. Swartz was trying to > trick JSTOR into giving him access to their database after they had > specifically tried their best to ban him from doing so. And the "property" > was the contents of the JSTOR database itself.

do people on HN even read the articles anymore?

<comment><USER10> Except that MIT runs an open network, so Swartz didn't have to "spoof" anything. Rotating your IP or MAC address on an open network is simply not a violation of the statutory penal system. MIT can sue him for damages and abuse at most, the state is a non-party to the matter.

<comment><USER9> The federal charges are with respect to unlawful access to JSTOR's computers, not MIT's computers. Furthermore, Aaron didn't have to "spoof" anything. JSTOR tried to ban him from their computers for activities against their terms of service. Orin Kerr's argument is that attempting to circumvent those bans to gain property is wire fraud, which there is a federal law against. So the actually the state is a party.

<comment><USER10> It seems the problem with interpreting wire fraud with his cited precedent comes down to an IP address versus an identity. The cited case contained two employees with specific usernames to denote their identities. When one uses the other's identity it's an impersonation -- or a false pretense. This case contains publicly available IP addresses and network-wide access and with that comes access to JSTOR. Rotating the IP to gain continued access might be immoral or tortious conduct at best, but as long as he didn't impersonate another user (possibly by spoofing an active IP address even) the court wouldn't be right in interpreting with the cited precedent.

If the court decided this way: Say my dhcp-obtained cable IP becomes banned from JSTOR, when it changes and I _simply check_ if I can access JSTOR again, I'd be in violation. Furthermore, a reasonable person wouldn't know that an IP address could be an identity similar to a username and that changing it would be a crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Repost: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5048820>

</comment><comment><USER12> Although I am deeply saddened by Aaron taking his life, I feel that part of the article is intellectually dishonest.

I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because:

\- "MIT runs an open network" But this is irrelevant, if Aaron used my public Wifi it wouldn't be my job to police his actions even if I had the resources for that.

\- "MIT could have locked the network down, but didn't." This is a poor excuse as well. "I could have locked my car doors, but I didn't, so I guess it's my fault." Or better yet, "I could have worn my hijab, but I didn't, so I suppose it's my fault I was punished in a Sharia court".

\- "MIT doesn't specifically tell its users not to do dickwad things to its network." This is the same logic that gets those "stupid warning labels" put on everything!

\- "JSTOR didn't have technical facilities in place to stop people like Aaron." But the only reason such technical facilities would be needed is if Aaron's behavior on the network were unacceptable in the first place.

\- "Aaron did not 'hack' the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of 'hack'". But this is kind of a strawman, go back and read the article's own description of the charges if you don't believe me, they claim only generic things like "unauthorized access" or "deceptively appearing as if he were from MIT".

\- "He didn't try to hide his behavior". Who CARES? If I steal something in broad daylight in the real world people would say I was an idiot, not that I was "innocent".

\- "Other people use fake identities too". Which is the same argument every parent of a 5-year-old has heard and taken care of...

\- "If JSTOR had properly responded to the DoS/unauthorized access it wouldn't have been such a big deal". See above about victim blaming.

\- "But he wasn't trespassing!". And in the next sentence, "the Federal government isn't charging him with such". Uh, OK?

Now, did he deserve even the possibility of 35 years in prison? No. Is it right to prevent him (as Lessig claims) from forming a proper legal defense fund? Absolutely not.

In fact, _that_ would be an area that needs to be properly "witch hunted" over because it's obvious from the outpouring of support now that Aaron's dead that he could have found help if he were able to ask... so why wasn't he able? What did the district court judge order that led Aaron to kill himself rather than risking the ire of a district judge?

I wonder also why Aaron was so worried about being termed a 'felon'. I've worked with a felon, it was a similarly stupid charge (let's just say he later married his "victim"), and absolutely no one cared. Roman Polanski is still making movies; Aaron would have been just fine. But that was his choice to make. :(

But I worry about articles like this that have popped up in the aftermath, especially when they are so full of inaccuracies as this.

<comment><USER13> >I wonder also why Aaron was so worried about being termed a 'felon'.

Convicted felons are stripped of a wide swath of legal rights; notably the right to vote. Additionally, unlike with felonies for crimes that violate state laws, there is _no_ legal process for having those rights reinstated after the completion of your sentence for Federal convictions, i.e., you lose those rights for life.

<comment><USER12> I know this (I'm trained to provide voting assistance myself). But given the alternative....

<comment><USER13> For somebody as ambitious as Aaron, I could see how felon status would feel like a huge roadblock to the things he wanted to do.

Depression largely isn't rational.

<comment><USER12> > Depression largely isn't rational.

I think that sums it up, really. I'm just glad I made it through my teenage years without my then-depression taking my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Oh come on. He was an activist, he purposely broke outrageous laws to protest the laws themselves.

The fact there is only innocent or guilty in a court of law forces to defend actions as innocent where instead it should be the law itself on trial, not Aaron.

US law codes, public scientific journals, should openly available to all who are subject to them or could benefit from them. That's what he was protesting and the amazing thing about Aaron was instead of sitting on his couch like most of us do, he actually did something in protest and risked his personal freedom.

There is practically nothing we can do for Aaron now, perhaps instead we should focus our efforts on someone who might benefit from the outrage like Bradley Manning.

</comment><comment><USER15> No need for an article : he died innocent since he wasn't proven (yet?) guilty.</comment>


Didn't get into YC? Up your funding odds with the MassChallenge - <AUTHOR> http://screeley.com/didnt-get-into-yc-up-your-odds-1600-for-fundi

<comment><USER2> "I think Y Combinator's acceptance numbers this year will be something like .01%."

I assume this is meant as a joke, but just in case: every cycle we take about the same percentage of applications. It's always between 2.5 and 3.5%.

(This is not a deliberate plan. It has just always worked out that way.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Going through their application... I think their Challenge should be to really revamp it. I feel like I have to click Save after ever field or I'll be redirected to some random page when I click "Next."

</comment><comment><USER4> MassChallenge was a lifetime experience for me! I'm not in an IT space, so I'm not sure that YCombinator could be a good fit for me, but MassChallenge was a good fit indeed.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was a MassChallenge winner (@studyabroad101) and if you want any thoughts about it, Tweet at me @adamjgmiller

<comment><USER6> Here's an article I wrote about the merits of the program if anyone's interested: 14 Reasons You Should Enter the MassChallenge - <http://bit.ly/f6wSvm>

Tweet me @andygcook or firstname.lastname@example.com with any questions</comment></comment>


Personalized medicine: Time for one-person trials - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/personalized-medicine-time-for-one-person-trials-1.17411

<comment><USER2> > Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help > them. The top ten highest-grossing drugs in the United States help between 1 > in 25 and 1 in 4 of the people who take them (see 'Imprecision medicine'). > For some drugs, such as statins — routinely used to lower cholesterol — as > few as 1 in 50 may benefit. There are even drugs that are harmful to certain > ethnic groups because of the bias towards white Western participants in > classical clinical trials.

Those are stunningly small proportions. What is the explanation? People try out lots of drugs and stop taking those that seem not to be working?

The graphic in the article says the proportions are related to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat) but I think I'll have to read that article several times to understand. :) Not clear what reference in the article (the Nature one) provides the proportions or NNT data, but the nearest footnote is paywalled anyway.

<comment><USER2> Read again, the 'proportions' are literally 1 in NNT, I think. NNT is the number needed to treat in order to make a positive difference for 1 patient, vs control group with no treatment. NNT between two studies not directly comparable if they are of different durations.

I'm still curious then how such high NNT drugs are blockbusters. Restating what I wrote above, I guess it is worth trying many of these, even with potential side effects, for a 1 in 4 chance the drug will help (seems entirely plausible) to even a 1 in 50 chance (less so).

I suppose then that precision medicine could largely have people trying fewer drugs, as for people similar to the patient, the NNT might be lower (indicating a definite try) or higher -- but OTOH if people are taking a 1 in 50 chance now, what odds will actually make them bypass a drug?</comment></comment>