Apple.com responsive?
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- mirrorball0
No need, they've an app for the app store
- But you can't buy apple products in the app store :/Hombre_Lobo
- But you can in the apple store app.jtb26
- And in store you can use to scan shit, pay and walk out without talking to a single blue shirted fuck.jtb26
- Hombre_Lobo0
As fate rightly pointed out there is some serious misunderstandings of responsive web design and development in this thread.
But ultimately you would think that the company that pushes mobile devices and who has arguably had more impact on that market than any other company, would have a website that is mobile friendly.
Not to mention how apple are all meant to be about user friendly and usability. A full desktop site on a mobile phone is in no way the most user friendly experience.
There is a reason there is a huge mobile first responsive movement in web dev and design, because its incredibly effective.
Apple probably couldn't give a crap, they are too busy raking it in from the app store and have other priorities. But making a new responsive site would certainly be beneficial.
GENERIC LOOKING:
Sure a lot of responsive sites look the same, but that's kind of a pointless argument. You see loads of sites that are just another super generic responsive twitter bootstrap or foundation clone.But to dismiss responsive mobile first web design because a lot of people have been unimaginitive in the design and implementation of websites, is just plain stupid.
It's like seeing loads of ugly jpegs and thinking "fuck jpegs". Or seeing JavaScript used for the same thing on every site and thinking "fuck JavaScript".
- they make it sounds like it's fuckn rocket science
https://beta.virgina…GeorgesIV - Ha absolutely! just saw that site on twitter, looks decent eh! Still needs work though, but it's only beta!Hombre_Lobo
- they make it sounds like it's fuckn rocket science
- deathboy0
Seems like responsive design has a niche client. But definitely not the need all be for everything. The designing for the lowest common denominator without any real reason except cause or a few people surf on phones is pointless. That kind of thinking is why slates still have to be in safe areas for the old tube tv's. And most adweek numbers of mobile growth never do specify their definitions of "mobile". Im wondering how much hardware they call mobile that has at least 1024 wide browser. Ultrabooks, tablets, and the like that can display pages fine. I really think its about the money. Easy to adjust templates and upsell for more money and less creativity and targeting. People always seem to forget to ask is responsive really necessary for this client anymore. Or better to just make a quickie mobile version straight forward.
- Mobile traffic overtook desktop traffic last year. Designing for mobile and responsive is now very important.Hombre_Lobo
- I was a bit vague, I'll try and get the stats and specific markets and post them...Hombre_Lobo
- I do agree the term mobile can be vague though. I imagine it means non-desktop os in a lot of cases.Hombre_Lobo
- Yea i read it took it over but everyone i ask says emial/facebook social shit. No real web surfing on phones. Tablets they do. I wish they be mroe thorough with there numbersdeathboy
- i know people surf more with. Just not much on phones whenever i ask. Could be a small circle. But i wish they actually defined mobile as less than 400 px or soemthingdeathboy
- would define mobile as browsers smaller than 400 pixels or a pixel per inch measurement of some sort. Laptops go mobile...deathboy
- But still don't forget to ask is responsive really necessary for this client? Is this a site a mobile user will spend time on?deathboy
- on?deathboy
- I agree it's not always necessary, for small budgets certainly. But the world is getting more device diverse faster than ever,Hombre_Lobo
- Hombre_Lobo0
Just spotted ephix comment here -
http://www.qbn.com/topics/685178…
(having it non responsive was part of showing how the iPhone can display the full web) That's a pretty solid argument, v good point dude.At launch that seems like a very wise choice and helpful to their marketing. By now though when smart phones are well understood by most I would have thought they would be responsive for improved usability.
This thread has some good discussion in it though. v interesting how some people still prefer the desktop site for usability.
However Preferring a desktop site because it has more options is just poor workmanship by the designer / dev, a lot of top ux dudes argue you should never omit features / options / content based on different screens sizes.
- jtb260
This is starting to sound a lot like the debate on whether or not to support IE6. Folks were screaming that 5-10% of browsers were still in and that was 5-10% they couldn't ignore.
Now mobile browsers account for 30-50% of mobile traffic (from what I've seen on clients sites). Don't see how you can ignore that.
m. sites usually mean that you have to manage two code bases for the front end, and it's just not feasible. On top of that, designing desktop first leaves you with a lot of problems when you try to scale down for mobile. That's why mobile first.
Just go read everything Luke W. has written on the topic.
- 30-50% of overall traffic.jtb26
- Luke worbleski bomb just got dropped... Shit got real. That dude is the kingHombre_Lobo
- I remember first making responsive sites and thinking screw mobile first... I quickly regretted it. It's aceHombre_Lobo
- ukit20
Google.com is not responsive
Amazon.com is not responsive
Twiiter.com is not responsive (and they invented Bootstrap!)Pretty sure if you go down the list of most visited sites you'll find that almost none of them are.
Bottom line, it's easy for a small company to launch a responsive redesign of their site, not so easy when you have a huge existing infrastructure to support and millions of visitors.
- lol. you what? they don't need to be because they are app driven on mobile. google works fine on mobile but on android its part of the osfadein11
- its part of the os. what are you bangin' on about?fadein11
- Same with Apple, they have a mobile app for their store.ukit2
- not the same at allfadein11
- Why not the same? All the big news sites...NYT, CNN, etc...also work that wayukit2
- not the same at all, if you access google.com from mobile, you go to mobile site, same with amazon and twitter, apple doesn't have a m siteGeorgesIV
- m site and it's so backward for a company like apple that I'm appaled of the # people trying to defend itGeorgesIV
- They have mobile sites, like responsive, it offers a better experience.Hombre_Lobo
- OK fair enough, I thought the thread was about responsive and mobile first like Microsoft's siteukit2
- monospaced0
- hahaha brilliant movie. Rex kwondo has taught him well.Hombre_Lobo
- monospaced0
If Apple had a responsive site, they might gain some mobile traffic and actually start selling some of their products. The fact that their store website is sub-par on the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there should be motivation enough for them to go responsive get out of this terrible sales rut.
- Agreed dude! It wouldn't do them any harm at the very least.Hombre_Lobo
- jtb260
I think Apple and Google's motivation to push native platforms outweigh's the logic of having a solid site for mobile. This could also explain why we see so little innovation in mobile browsers from a usability standpoint.
- Being the envy of the entire retail universe outweighs Apple's need for a responsive site.monospaced
- google native platform? android? open source platform? wtf are you banging on about?fadein11
- ernexbcn0
Who gives a fuck? they have an app to buy their products, the website works on mobile even if it's not responsive, what's all this drama?
- who actually uses their app to buy products?fadein11
- no drama just a shit out of date site... not on jobs watchfadein11
- im enjoying this discussing. not much responsive banter on qbn usuallyHombre_Lobo
- ernexbcn0
Try now, they listened to QBN feedback!
- < yep it is indeed!fadein11
- Works great!
http://i.imgur.com/y…organicgrid - mobile has it's own css.jtb26