> How is it difficult to get someone to install something for a test run when like 90% of app installs are test runs?
The link you shared does not provide any statistics about the amount of installs relative to didn't-installs. It only deals with the set of people who have already installed, which says nothing to prove or disprove the point in contention (that increasing the set of people who have installed at all is difficult).
> So you're saying it's difficult to get someone to install your app at all
Yes [they are].
> and that has nothing to do with your product or your marketing, but it has something to do with the technology?
Based only on what they wrote, not necessarily. They only seem to be saying that the statistics you provided do not support your conclusion:
>> you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out
> In fact, the statistics prove[1] that this is false. Most app installs are to try it out, and promptly delete it. Most users will delete your app shortly after installing it.
To recap. The claim is that PWAs are preferable to apps because "people don't test drive apps."
In fact, people test drive apps as a rule, and none of them install PWAs. I have shown a 2 second googled piece of evidence showing the degree to which people test drive apps. No evidence to support the ease of use or frequency of PWA homescreen pins exists/has been provided.
I'm going to stop responding to this thread unless your comment contains a substantive argument supporting OP.
> To recap. The claim is that PWAs are preferable to apps because "people don't test drive apps."
Ah. Now I see where the confusion lies. I don't think that's what the OP was saying.
> Given the fact that most people are already maxed out on apps on their device with just things like facebook and youtube, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out.
No one in this thread is claiming that people who install apps don't test drive them. Your evidence proves that they do, and no one has challenged or disagreed with that evidence.
The claim is not related to how often people who download an app test it out and delete it soon after. You're focused on the wrong detail. The claim is that they aren't even downloading apps to test them in the first place.
> I'm going to stop responding to this thread unless your comment contains a substantive argument supporting OP.
The OP is the only one arguing OP's perspective right now. Everyone else is just trying to get you to understand what the OP is actually saying rather than what you claim they're saying.
Let's try an analogy:
> Millennials are increasingly choosing not to eat at casual dining chains such as Applebees.
Responding to that by saying that Applebees is the most popular casual dining chain by a given metric does not disprove this claim. Whether people choose Applebees more often than Chilis has nothing to do with the fact that they're both losing millennial customers.
>They're saying it's difficult to get people to install an app even to test drive them, and saying it's easier to get them to visit your webpage.
But getting people to visit your website being easy does not mean that is where you should host your app. I don't believe people are going to say "Wow this website was useful, let me pin it to my screen." I believe that is a niche thing that nerds do, and has awful results for the rest.
>The claim is that they aren't even downloading apps to test them in the first place.
But there is nothing here to show that a PWA is the solution to get someone to download the app! The assertion is that the download is the issue, which there isn't any evidence for. If downloading apps was such a problem, why would people constantly be test driving apps? They may uninstall because of space or tracking concerns, or maybe it's a cleanliness thing, but I am refuting the base claim that "space on your phone" being a deterrent means that PWA is a solution.
Get the download through marketing, hold the download through value.
>Everyone else is just trying to get you to understand what the OP is actually saying
That's an artifact of it being statically typed. The data type to unmarshal into / marshal from needs to be defined somewhere. The extra stuff apart from error handling isn't required if you use a more generic type like `map[string]interface{}`.
Check out the hindley milner type system [1]. It's used by haskell and some other languages, and allows for a very extensive amount of type inference. You can often write large sections of code with no type annotations and the compiler can figure out the most general type based on the type of some function called somewhere, which means the thing you did with that result must be of a certain class of types, which makes the surrounding expressions' types have to be a certain class of types, etc etc.
I think it's fair to say that (GHC) Haskell no longer really uses the Hindley-Milner type system. It doesn't have let generalization (except in a few restricted cases), and it doesn't have principal types, which I would consider to be the two distinguishing features of HM.
Let generalization should only be disabled if one uses the GADT type extension and even then can be turned on in addition to GADTs. While Haskell isn't really Hindley-Milner, it's close enough for most development.
That doesn't seem right. Why wouldn't intelligence help predict the unexpected? The point of their argument is that higher intelligence may make it easier to expect what somebody with a lower intelligence would not expect.
People don't think in strictly logical terms, there's a whole mess of abstract pattern matching and built up experiential anticipations embedded in the process.
That pun might require some iota of shared knowledge, but it doesn't require much intelligence to get. Amount of knowledge doesn't define intelligence - someone who scores low on an IQ test will get that joke just as much as someone who scores highly (not that I'm equating IQ score with intelligence).
I don't think that a lack of shared knowledge is what they are getting at. Complexity of a joke has more to do with lots of disparate moving pieces, so to speak. The ability to quickly perceive those pieces - and what is unexpected within them - isn't shared by everyone.
You can purchase mass produced stuff but the quality of vape you get is much better with DIY setups, though it puts the onus of safe design parameters on the builder. With electronically regulated devices this risk goes down a great deal, older gen (though still in wide use) devices called mechanical mods would basically short circuit a lithium battery to a coil of wire - if the resistance is too low you pull way too much power for the battery and catastrophic heating occurs.
The link you shared does not provide any statistics about the amount of installs relative to didn't-installs. It only deals with the set of people who have already installed, which says nothing to prove or disprove the point in contention (that increasing the set of people who have installed at all is difficult).
> So you're saying it's difficult to get someone to install your app at all
Yes [they are].
> and that has nothing to do with your product or your marketing, but it has something to do with the technology?
Based only on what they wrote, not necessarily. They only seem to be saying that the statistics you provided do not support your conclusion:
>> you're going to be hard pressed to get people to install your app just to try it out
> In fact, the statistics prove[1] that this is false. Most app installs are to try it out, and promptly delete it. Most users will delete your app shortly after installing it.