Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

rogueengine.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 384 posts

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#281

Post by wiseowise »

gazchop wrote: post #2

I disagree. The problem is more nuanced. A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site. The problem is poorly implemented apps which are just UI wrappers hitting dumb APIs or embedding entire web stacks which hit dumb APIs. A well implemented web app isn't much better than that. They don't work offline, they use way more resources than anything native and they leak data like a siev…

> A well implemented (native) app is always better than a well implemented web site.

No, not always. I don’t care how well implemented or optimized your “app” if it’s something that could’ve been a static web page.

> They don't work offline, they use way more resources than anything native and they leak data like a sieve generally

False, false and false.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#282

Post by madeofpalk »

panic wrote: post #202
tshaddox wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On iOS iirc they don't even support adding PWAs to the homescreen? You've been able to add websites to the home screen going back at least to the iPhone 5 in 2012. Is it the "PWA" part you're questioning? iOS definitely does have PWA support, although with a few notable limitations that may be deal-breakers for certain apps. Oh, and apparently Apple recently disabled PWAs entirely in the EU.

In fact, home-screen web apps on iPhone OS predate third-party apps on the platform. Originally all third-party software was going to be installed this way.

> Originally all third-party software was going to be installed this way.

It's off topic, but I don't think this was true once the HTML Weather and Stocks 'widgets' failed on iOS. Anything Apple said publicly was just saving face until their SDK was ready for public consumption.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#283

Post by wiseowise »

mertbio wrote: post #16

> But fast-forward to today, and browsers can do all that. Browsers can't access all the APIs in iOS. > Developers pay hefty app store fees You pay 99$ per year and 15% for each sale. Apple handles VAT, refunds, distribution and so on. > They’re faster, more flexible, and work seamlessly across devices. Native apps? Not so much. Enabling iCloud sync for your app is just a single click on Xcode. > Why Web Apps Are the…

> Browsers can't access all the APIs in iOS.

Always laugh at the argument. Surely this matters for yet-another-mobile-crud #3553333.

> You pay 99$ per year and 15% for each sale. Apple handles VAT, refunds, distribution and so on.

15% until 1 mil, isn’t it? And even without that, 15% is ridiculous price.

> Enabling iCloud sync for your app is just a single click on Xcode.

How many Xcode clicks to port iOS app to Windows, Mac, Android and Web?

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#284

Post by urbandw311er »

brookst wrote: post #255
moffkalast wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The need to remove the capability was informed by the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps to support alternative browser engines that would require building a new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and iPadOS. This rationalization makes zero sense, it's just opening a standalone browser window from a convenient icon shortcut. They could even ignore the manifest.…

Shows why guessing and gut feel are bad basis for opinions. In fact, Apple’s problem was that the PWA serviceworker runs as root, a bad decision made years ago. Enabling Chrome-hosted PWAs means Google gets root on those peoples’ phones. We can still lambast Apple and go all ad hom, but let’s stay factual?

Not doubting you but care to share some links to back this up? I’d be interested to read more.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#285

Post by urbandw311er »

brookst wrote: post #257
segfaltnh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the part where he calls out airline apps is spot on though. They don't need any of that tech.

As a frequent user of both web and phone airline apps, the phone apps are just nicer . UI idioms that are appropriate for the platform, etc.

Only if they’re designed that way. Many aren’t.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#286

Post by KTibow »

la_fayette wrote: post #183

There are definitely apps, which could be websites, e.g., using the coinmarkecap app doesn't make any sense in comparison to the website. But there are many things which cannot be done sufficiently on the web, e.g., augmented reality, tracking gps in the background, accessing a users calendar or phonebook, Bluetooth, scheduled notifications, etc... In general there is something called app fatigue. Convincing somebody…

The web tries to do a lot of things, even some of the stuff you named. There's a Bluetooth API in Chrome, server-sent notifications via service workers, and some attempts at VR support.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#287

Post by wat10000 »

acheron wrote: post #225
leptons wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ for a variety of abusive business practices, including forcing all web browser apps on iOS to use the Safari browser engine, which limits the usefuleness of all web browsers on iOS, so that developers are forced to develop an app which Apple can then take a 30% cut of all revenue generated by the app. It's a pure money-grab by Apple, and they deserve this legal action against…

Is the only alternative still Google? Yeah I’m good with Apple, thanks.

That’s all the more reason good regulation is essential. If there were a dozen viable competitors then you could just step back and let the market decide.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#288

Post by wiseowise »

not_the_fda wrote: post #82

I'll take a native app over a web app every time. HTTP was not designed for apps, it was designed for serving HTML. We had a decent solution in Java applets and the tech giants could play nice so we couldn't have nice things. The work around has been a huge kludge of crap frameworks of the day trying to reinvent the OS and associated API in the browser. It sucks all the way down. Apps are: More powerful More efficien…

> More powerful

What does it even mean?

> More efficient

Debatable. Depends on implementation.

> Have better tooling

Absolutely no. I’m yet to see any native toolkit that has even feature parity and nice DX compared to web development.

> Have stable APIs

Ask Android developers about stable APIs. Also, which web APIs do you find unstable?

> Are easier to debug

Debatable.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#289

Post by urbandw311er »

adastra22 wrote: post #263
ipaddr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could give only them location access then they wouldn't be able to see what apps are installed, contacts and family photos or listen on the mic. You are afraid of a browser so you give system access?

What you describe hasn't been the case for almost a decade. On iOS and Android apps need to explicitly request and be granted one-by-one permission for all those items. Which is exactly the problem I'm encountering for web apps--typically the browser is granted all those privileges and then there is a per-site restriction in place. (1) I don't trust this sub-level restriction as much as I do the native per-app restri…

Here’s an example of how large companies abuse their power to push back against these privacy guards.

iOS has the ability to share your photos with an app in a special “picker” where you select the pics you want to share and then they’re sent to the app. The app can’t see the picker so it only has access to the photos you explicitly share.

WhatsApp deliberately ignores this integration path and gives you a choice of either manually choosing more photos to share each time, then selecting them a second time. Or sharing all photos forever, which most users will eventually choose because the friction of the first one is so massive. It’s done cynically and deliberately so they can have access to all your photographs. I shudder to think for what purpose.

Re: App Should Have Been a Website (and Probably Your Game Too)

#290

Post by urbandw311er »

adastra22 wrote: post #265
bloppe wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why you think location access is OK for the Uber app but not ok for the uber.com website?

That's not what I was saying. Granting the permission to uber.com requires granting the permission first to the browser, then configuring and trusting the browser's own internal per-site restrictions. I don't trust this as much as the more fine grained and configurable OS-level restrictions.

Uber are the worst for abusing this kind of stuff and for dark UX patterns to get you to subscribe to Uber One. I’m repeatedly asked SEVERAL TIMES EVERY TIME I USE THE APP. and there is no way to pause or opt out from this nagging. They even abuse the push notifications to try and sell me stuff as well.
Post reply on HN