News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by nucleardog on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @03:55PM (#9607236)
URLs are opaque strings to the typical user.
Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by yellowapple on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @07:10PM (#9608272)
My point was that the typical user would be better served with a native app that turns that URL into less-opaque data.

And even with the URL alone, that's still significantly less opaque than YouTube's current method of https://youtube.com/$some_random_gibberish. At least someone could see something like https://mytube.com/j_random_hacker/how_to_computer.mp4 and guess that "j_random_hacker" is a username and "how_to_computer.mp4" is a video uploaded by that user.

This isn't much different from, say, reddit, where URLs are actually part of normal discussion; a redditor will talk about a subreddit called "/r/mylittlepony" or a user named "/u/Unidan" or somesuch, directly referencing paths (to https:/reddit.com/r/mylittlepony and https://reddit.com/u/Unidan, respectively). Granted, reddit's userbase is somewhat more tech-savvy on average than, say, Facebook's or YouTube's, but it shows that URLs are not necessarily opaque to typical users, and it's certainly not hard to even manually demonstrate such things to new users.

This also isn't much different from many (most?) news sites, which provide URLs that resemble the name of the article (with some adjustment to make everything lowercase, turn spaces into underscores, strip or substitute special characters, etc.).

Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by jsprogrammer on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @09:35PM (#9608798)
> a native app that turns that URL into less-opaque data.

Like a web browser?

Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by yellowapple on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @09:51PM (#9608856)
More like any application that interfaces with a JSON-based API. Those API calls work by talking to a server over HTTP(S) and requesting something from a URL.

There's no reason why a native app can't do this - in fact, many native apps for things like YouTube and Pandora and such already do this.

Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by mrSugar on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @10:48AM (#9611728)
But how would that serve ads to the eyeballs? You forget that most of modern webcontent is just packaging fluff for eyeballs to more easily digest the real content payload - the advertisments.
Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by yellowapple on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @02:15PM (#9613264)
That's not my problem. If it were, I'd solve it by embedding ads in the video stream itself, which is how traditional video broadcasters have done it for more than half a century. In the audio realm, Pandora already does this with third-party clients perfectly fine.
Re:Web vs. native: let’s concede defeat by marssaxman on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @04:27PM (#9607420)
So are most other schemes for information organization, but that does not make them inherently less useful.