Skip navigation

Currently Being Moderated

iPhone App Revisited

Posted by RobCameron.2.16b on Mar 19, 2010 12:21:33 PM

Screen shot 2010-03-19 at 12.21.01 PM.pngWe launched our iPhone app last week and it was greeted with less than stellar reviews. One reviewer complained of bugs, another about the lack of saving tab order, another about sluggishness. I wanted to explain the non-traditional approach we took when developing this app and what we're doing to improve the experience for those less-than-satisfied customers.

 

We built this app using a new tool called Titanium. It was created by Appcelerator as a way to write iPhone apps without using XCode, Objective-C or Cocoa. You write your apps using Javascript and several libraries they make available to add the same functionality as if you had written a native app--UI controls, the camera, a local database, and lots more. A very ambitious project that looks like it's off to a good start. Unfortunately, being an early adopter means you're going to run into more bugs and unexpected behavior than with a well-established toolkit. We wanted to get the app out to people quickly and our internal testing didn't show any of these bugs that are popping up in the wild so we felt we were ready to go.

 

We wrote the first version of ActiveReader against a beta release of Titanium--0.8.3. Development of Titanium itself was happening very rapidly and new SDKs were being released every few weeks. Documentation was okay, but they had a thriving community which the developers participated in regularly. If you had a problem you could usually get it answered within a couple of hours. However lots of functionality was still missing from the API, and bugs were being found on a daily basis.

 

Titanium is now in 1.0.0 (as of two weeks ago) and the API has changed quite a bit. They are now doing as much as possible in "native" iPhone views rather than everything being a "webView."  While webViews are easier to code using their Javascript/HTML/CSS paradigm, they are really, really slow (one of the major complaints about the current version of ActiveReader). They (Appcelerator) neglected to mention this prior to their decision to overhaul the API. The apps that the new version of Titanium creates *are* much faster.  Appcelerator has also announced their business model for Titanium--charge for premium support and access to analytics about your app. What this means the thriving community is now almost purely supported by the users themselves. The devs don't appear as often and I can only assume this is to encourage us to upgrade to premium. Also, the documentation is even spottier than it was for the beta release. So for now help is being provided only by other users who are also confused and picking their way through the code just like you.

 

So, what have we done to get the app more stable?  We were able to migrate the app from the 0.8.3 framework to the 1.0.0 framework over the past week and it is currently being reviewed by Apple to be added to the app store. We expect that to happen early next week at the latest. The loading times for the app are orders of magnitude faster. Previously you would be staring at the splash page for 10 seconds or more while waiting for articles to come down from the cloud. Now the loading screen is up for 1-2 seconds and you see a list of articles immediately. Viewing an article is faster as well.

We also removed offline access to articles for the time being. This is another of the major performance problems with the current version and we want to revisit the database storage issue in-depth. We felt that lack of offline access wasn't a deal-killer to getting this new version out the door in the hopes that it addresses most people's concerns.

 

It may turn out in the end that Titanium just won't fit our needs as a rapid iPhone application development environment. The Light Engineering Group's mission is to find new technologies that help us get to the market faster than ever and we hoped Titanium would be another way to do this. While it's true that we are able to develop apps quickly, it may not be worth the tradeoff of stability and lack of support. We may end up going back to the drawing board and instead build the app out from scratch using the good old fashioned tools that Apple intended for us to use in the first place. Time will tell!

 

We appreciate everyone that's downloaded the app so far and given great feedback on Facebook and Twitter. We won't leave you guys hanging -- we'll get you a great reader one way or another!

Comments (1)