Unnecessary iPad website apps

[Bodhi395]

I've seen a number of websites are still offering specific apps to display their websites. Sites like Facebook, New York Times, Wikipedia, IMDB, etc... I can see how these apps are very useful on an iphone, since you can organize things alot better on the small iphone screen. Yet, I don't see why they are necessary for the ipad, since the screen is big enough now that you can just go to the full website and it looks basically like it does on a regular computer. None of these sites offer mac or windows specific apps, they just expect you to go to their regular site.

For me, I think it would be alot easier to just open Safari and navigate to the sites you want, as opposed to having to open up these apps when you just want to quick check something.

 

[CJS7070]

I don't know, but if an app provided better touch functionality, I wouldn't mind using the standalone app.

 

[Jordashebasics]

While I don't like the IMDB App as much as the site's functionality, I actually like the NYTimes App more than their site. Less flashy, more straight content.

 

[Nausicaa]

Because they provide a better experience for a touch screen device. Content can be laid out in a manner tailored for the iPad, instead of scrolling around and zooming in the web browser. It's also one touch access as opposed to loading up the web browser, selecting a bookmark or entering a url, logging in, etc.

Most of them are free anyway, how is this a bad thing?

 

[darngooddesign]

With faceBook, for example, will the website allow you to select a photo from your iPhone's/iPad's photo library? The app will.

 

[flyguy206]

it is always nice to have more then one option.

 

[miles01110]

it is always nice to have more then one option.

Yeah, like syncing an iPod/iPad/iPhone with something other than iTunes.

 

[Bodhi395]

Because they provide a better experience for a touch screen device. Content can be laid out in a manner tailored for the iPad, instead of scrolling around and zooming in the web browser. It's also one touch access as opposed to loading up the web browser, selecting a bookmark or entering a url, logging in, etc.

Most of them are free anyway, how is this a bad thing?

Not bad, just a little unnecessary. To me its alot less convenient clicking on seperate apps to access websites, as opposed to clicking on bookmarks in safari. The way I usually web surf is I go to a whole bunch of websites, most that I have bookmarked. Once I'm in safari, I don't want to have to exit it to open up my facebook app, I think its easier just to click on my facebook bookmark. Also, any of these seperate apps that have links in them will take you back into safari anyway.

But, if people want them, so be it!

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

There are two reasons to do these "iPad sites".

1- The way a user interacts with information using touch is different than a mouse. You can design a site that is more touch-friendly.

2- You can do active content locally on the iPad - i.e. the stuff that would otherwise have been flash or some other plug-in...

It really depends on the site as to whether this is warranted. It's generally more useful for sites that have a heavy amount of interactivity.