• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

A NeoGAF iPhone Web App

Status
Not open for further replies.
EviLore said:
Yeah, I agree that a webapp makes more sense in that it doesn't need to be approved on each specific platform (and with its associated costs), doesn't need platform specific updates each time (major pain in the ass for the developer), and automatically supports just about anything that has a web browser anyway.


Re: charging for an app. I won't do it. I'm fundamentally opposed to charging for NeoGAF, if you hadn't noticed. The site's totally free and even the t-shirts are sold at-cost. It's a free site supported by ads. Mobile version has to have an ad of some sort.
Click to expand...


Is it really charging for the site though? It's charging for a specific window into GAF. You still would have the option of going through the normal site if you wanted. I find it closer to paying for a shirt rather than paying to get into the site.

I'd be curious on the solution for how you would get ads to work without being intrusive given the small screen size. Pretty much most mobile apps make it a terrible experience to the point where I think a lot would just rather pay to make them go away so that's why we're apprehensive the concept of ads. If you have a great idea, I'm for it but right now I'd rather pay to make them go away.
 
Sentry said:
It'd probably just be what we have now, plus ads and more security, rather than some massive reintegration or whatever.
Click to expand...

I don't know what else you would really want? The mobile version is already basically everything I would want from a mobile version of NeoGAF (other than not being "official" and providing no ad support for the site)
 
andycapps said:
How about it being free, then charging $.99 to get rid of the ads? Kind of like GAF Gold, but cheaper since it's only mobile.
Click to expand...

what if Gaf makes more money from ads over a user’s visits over, say, a month an than from a one time 99 cent payment? if that were true, it wouldn’t make much sense to offer than one time payment. it would likely be continuous payments. (and this, of course, ignores the fact that Evilore wants to keep Gaf free for everyone)

plus then Gaf needs to set up the system to differentiate between paid and unpaid users and handle all the micro transactions…

sounds like a pain.
 
LCfiner said:
what if Gaf makes more money from ads over a user’s visits over, say, a month an than from a one time 99 cent payment? if that were true, it wouldn’t make much sense to offer than one time payment. it would likely be continuous payments. (and this, of course, ignores the fact that Evilore wants to keep Gaf free for everyone)

plus then Gaf needs to set up the system to differentiate between paid and unpaid users and handle all the micro transactions…

sounds like a pain.
Click to expand...

Vbulletin has a system for subscriptions, or at least the latest version of it does.

I'm sure it'd be more effort than just sticking an Adsense banner at the top of each page, but the functionality wouldn't be impossible to have a user that's paid for mobile access. Depends on what kind of VB GAF is running I guess.
 
About the webapp
I think doing native apps for web sites is a horrible trend. You have a web site, you have smart phones and tablets with web browsers. It makes total sense to use the web for this type of thing, and the NeoGAF web app's worked very, very well right from the start. No app stores and hit/or miss policies to worry about, immediate updates, and almost universal access with the same interface. Keep it the way it is.

About ads
I have zero issues with ads. As long as they're not stuck in the middle of threads (top/bottom section of every page would work well), it shouldn't be a big deal.

Keep up the great work!
 
I'd do this for the webapp (just general suggestions):

1. If you create a thread, you're automatically subjected to an ad.

2. Every 2 or 3 replies you're subjected to an ad.

3. Every 5th page view you're subjected to an ad.

2 and 3 can be tracked with cookies if you're going to stick with the web app format.

I don't think doing an ad on every action will be very conducive to a good phone experience.
 
If a new app is made. Go metro please!

Og5p4.png


Swipe left and right for quick HOME/GD/OT/CF

If web app change themes option. (Metro for me).
 
CrankyJay said:
I'd do this for the webapp (just general suggestions):

1. If you create a thread, you're automatically subjected to an ad.

2. Every 2 or 3 replies you're subjected to an ad.

3. Every 5th page view you're subjected to an ad.

2 and 3 can be tracked with cookies if you're going to stick with the web app format.

I don't think doing an ad on every action will be very conducive to a good phone experience.
Click to expand...
Ew ew ew.

I'd much rather have banner ads integrated into the threads.

Full screen ads that you have to click through are just awful.
 
EviLore said:
Same design philosophy for the main site will apply to the mobile site, regarding ads.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you and ckohler finally hook up and make this happen.

I have no problem with ads as long as they're like the digg example that ckohler posted earlier. Ads that stay at the bottom or top of the screen permanently as you scroll up/down are horrible. I can't use any app that has those. Keeping the same philosophy as the main site with the ads implanted on the top and bottom ain't bad at all.

Like others have said though, I'd pay a few bucks for a non ad version.
 
An ad at the top of each page would be fine. A million other sites do it and they seem fairly quick to load so I don't have a problem.

Hopefully when the web app goes official it can move to m.neogaf.com or something.
 
cjelly said:
An ad at the top of each page would be fine. A million other sites do it and they seem fairly quick to load so I don't have a problem.

Hopefully when the web app goes official it can move to m.neogaf.com or something.
Click to expand...
Ooh, that would be amazing if the site redirected you when accessing from a mobile device.

The only thing I would change about the web app would be a less iOS-centric design. I turn off the GUI images, which helps, but I think the web app would look better with its own style instead of imitating iOS's look. Of course, I use Android, so I am biased in this regard.
 
EviLore said:
Same design philosophy for the main site will apply to the mobile site, regarding ads.
Click to expand...
ads i can get behind, but translating the design would be a mistake. the appeal of the mobile site is that, no offense to the original designer, it actually looks great and is intuitive to use. the mobile site doesn't need psuedo tabs to delineate the different forums, and the single column view is elegant and uncluttered.
 
scorcho said:
ads i can get behind, but translating the design would be a mistake. the appeal of the mobile site is that, no offense to the original designer, it actually looks great and is intuitive to use. the mobile site doesn't need psuedo tabs to delineate the different forums, and the single column view is elegant and uncluttered.
Click to expand...

I said regarding ads, not layout. The desktop layout isn't ideal for mobile use, hence having a mobile layout ;b. Everyone loves ckohler's mobile layout, myself included.
 
I'll pay for the app too, although Id rather keep it as a browser link and pay for a special no-ad subscription


For now though Im still doing all my browsing on secondapps and flipping to the main site when I want reply, can't beat the readability on a mobile device.
 
I like the webapp as is, added features are obviously a plus. But ad's on a mobile device, especially gaf is just ugh. I'd rather pay 5$ or whatever and just use it without ads.


..Or just keep everything as is.
 
andycapps said:
How about it being free, then charging $.99 to get rid of the ads? Kind of like GAF Gold, but cheaper since it's only mobile.
Click to expand...

Because as mentioned, this is a for-profit website. Evilore will generate more revenue over time from each of your visits here, than he will generate from you paying a one-time fee of .99 or 1.99
 
EviLore said:
I said regarding ads, not layout. The desktop layout isn't ideal for mobile use, hence having a mobile layout ;b. Everyone loves ckohler's mobile layout, myself included.
Click to expand...
i suppose i should've read after the comma

would you ever consider implementing a membership service that would allow members to opt in to pay X a month to remove ads? the added incentive of removing it on mobile devices could spur a lot more users to pay. i suppose the key would be implementing the feature in the forum software and working out the right dollar value.
 
The only thing I don't like about the secondapps website is... when I change my user agent so I can watch HULU videos I can't use the secondapps website anymore.

I hope when ads are supported on the mobile web app, any browser, even "Desktop" browsers can access the mobile site with ads. Then I can just be lazy and I wont have to change my user agent back and forth.
 
Fusebox said:
What does this mean? Your user has an agent? I'm lost.
Click to expand...

Ckohler blocks non-mobile devices from using the NeoGAF webapp because the webapp doesn't have any ads. So he's saying when he fakes his user agent to act as a regular computer so that he can load hulu, he can't load the webapp. And he's asking if that can change once the webapp is monetized.

However, mobile ads have the same restriction as the webapp currently does I think?
 
ahhhhhh, so he's using second apps and Hulu on the PC, I get it now. I thought he was talking about on a mobile device.

Btw evil, does it make a big difference to your revenue if we click the ads or not?
 
Fusebox said:
What does this mean? Your user has an agent? I'm lost.
Click to expand...

EviLore said:
Ckohler blocks non-mobile devices from using the NeoGAF webapp because the webapp doesn't have any ads. So he's saying when he fakes his user agent to act as a regular computer so that he can load hulu, he can't load the webapp. And he's asking if that can change once the webapp is monetized.

However, mobile ads have the same restriction as the webapp currently does I think?
Click to expand...

yep, exactly what I was asking. So the ads themselves are restricted... well that sucks.

Fusebox said:
ahhhhhh, so he's using second apps and Hulu on the PC, I get it now. I thought he was talking about on a mobile device.
Click to expand...

No you can also easily change the user agent on android browsers too, I don't know about iOS though.
 
Sentry said:
OK NOW I REMEMBER. Thought I was going nuts for a sec there, knew it happened at one point.. was just getting Juice and ckholer mixed up.


It'd probably just be what we have now, plus ads and more security, rather than some massive reintegration or whatever.


Well, I'd like to see the percentage of use stats on this. I'm sure most of the mobile GAF (that use secondapps) user base are either on an iDevice (iPad/iPhone/iPod) than not.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure on the latter? Android gaf is pretty popular.
 
ScOULaris said:
I have always wondered this as well. Does the site make money from ad views as well as clicks?
Click to expand...

They go hand in hand, really. Some campaigns are CPC (cost per click), some are CPM (cost per thousand page impressions), but most of the CPM campaigns are throttled or have their rates adjusted based on clickthrough rate anyway.

Because of this and the low clickthrough rate of the site, GAF makes a tiny fraction per pageview compared to a news site or blog or whatever that integrates its ads heavily into the content. Like 1-5% as much.

When ads aren't clicked on they still usually benefit the site by being displayed (which is why adblock is bad even if you never click), just that clicking is considerably better than viewing alone.
 
EviLore said:
They go hand in hand, really. Some campaigns are CPC (cost per click), some are CPM (cost per thousand page impressions), but most of the CPM campaigns are throttled or have their rates adjusted based on clickthrough rate anyway.

Because of this and the low clickthrough rate of the site, GAF makes a tiny fraction per pageview compared to a news site or blog or whatever that integrates its ads heavily into the content. Like 1-5% as much.

When ads aren't clicked on they still usually benefit the site by being displayed (which is why adblock is bad even if you never click), just that clicking is considerably better than viewing alone.
Click to expand...
Well that settles it. I'm gonna make ad-clickin' part of my daily GAF routine.
 
J Tourettes said:
What makes you so sure on the latter? Android gaf is pretty popular.
Click to expand...
Just that if I was using android I wouldn't be able to stand iOS style apps on my phone. That's just me though.

I'll wait and see how ads work out in the future m.neogaf.com or whatever, I hope it's not too unbearable. I would gladly have ads on something like an iPad, but the phone is just so small as is.

BUT it doesn't look like a payed iOS 'official' GAF app (as was in development before by Juice) is viable in multiple terms. A question though, EviLore: don't you think a payed no-ads option would bring in more than ad monetization?
 
ckohler said:
We've gone over this already guys. A web app is a better solution than a real app because it works on dozens of devices without needing to be installed and can be easily updated.
Click to expand...

My problem is that its not directly integrated with the site like an app would be. If it were an actual app I would be able to click on a link in google and it would automatically take me to the web app version instead of the desktop version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Foldable iPhone renders
2
79
2K
Trilobit replied
Apple posts a very cringe ad for new iPhone - A ferret gets triggered
48
2K
PonyStation4 replied
OpenAI shuts down Sora video app, Disney exits deal.
37
1K
Lord Panda replied
  • Locked
Neogaf unusable on mobile
10
1K
EviLore replied
Android: All of a sudden videos on default play muted in the Photos app(not Google Photos)
7
377
diffusionx replied
Top Bottom