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

Do not download the app, use the website

idiallo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 760 posts

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#61

Post by Zak »

josephcsible wrote: post #57
nomel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if your app's entire functionality could be done in a regular website or PWA, then you can't put a native app on our stores A very silly threshold, since this would knock out probably 95% of the app store, including games, since "websites" are extremely capable these days, with full 3d graphics, etc. Then, each time safari added a new modern browser feature, more would get knocked out.

Why is that a bad thing? Wouldn't we be better off with all of them being PWA's?

It's not a bad thing for users. It would reduce the ability of Apple and Google to extract revenue from their stores though, so they're motivated to do the opposite.

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#62

Post by Tadpole9181 »

nomel wrote: post #47
josephcsible wrote: post #40

I wish Apple and Google would make rules to the effect of "if your app's entire functionality could be done in a regular website or PWA, then you can't put a native app on our stores".

> if your app's entire functionality could be done in a regular website or PWA, then you can't put a native app on our stores A very silly threshold, since this would knock out probably 95% of the app store, including games, since "websites" are extremely capable these days, with full 3d graphics, etc. Then, each time safari added a new modern browser feature, more would get knocked out.

I think that's a little overstated. Part of a game's functionality is performance and native controls. A website can technically do those things, but the JS and WGL requirements will significantly hamper performance, and getting a browser to hand over native, first-class control of the device to the website is largely impossible and usually ends up an awkward mess.

And that little asterisk would end up getting abused by pretty much everyone. After all, we wouldn't be able to add the same functionality to the website because the developers we employ for this are only proficient in ``.

By-intent, it would definitely be a big chunk of the apps out there, but I would argue that's a good thing. I don't want an App for every brand I interact with, especially since I know what they're doing (harvesting my data to sell to brokers to make a fraction of a penny more per transaction).

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#64

Post by msgodel »

reflexe wrote: post #60

I think that while data is a major point here, in my opinion, these are the reasons apps are preferred by developers: 1. Persistence: while websites are very easy to close, deleting an app is much more difficult and usually requires pressing on some “red buttons” and scary dialogs. It also makes sure the user now has a button for your app on their Home Screen which makes it a lot more accessible. 2. Notifications: wh…

I actually do not want your garbage persisting on my machine and if you want to notify me you can ask for my email and maintain the required infrastructure to send me notification emails.

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#65

Post by Tadpole9181 »

markbao wrote: post #7

Don’t agree, but to each their own. The native app experience for every app noted in the article is better and smoother than the mobile web version, in my opinion. Lots of people hate Electron apps, which suggests to me that my preference for native apps isn’t unique. Web apps can ask for your location or microphone the same way native apps can. Just reject it, there’s nothing that says you have to accept on either p…

If this was actually done, let's say as a government-imposed requirement, we may actually see some innovation in browser usage and the release of new UI frameworks.

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#66

Post by WorldPeas »

as an individual more on the unconventional side I've gotten so dissatisfied with this that I have a donki nanote next just for viewing websites on-the-go. I really wish that people made a mobile device that could do the job of a phone and laptop. We have the technology.

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#67

Post by wonger_ »

rickcarlino wrote: post #25

I dream of developing mobile sites that can play audio with the screen off and use the same media controls as apps (think: music player apps while driving). A lot of the things that make mobile sites second class is the lack of screen-off functionality.

You should! The browser APIs are straightforward:

  navigator.mediaSession.metadata = new MediaMetadata({
    title: song.name,
    album: song.category,
    artwork: [{src: song.imagePath, type: 'image/jpg'}]
  })

  navigator.mediaSession.setActionHandler('play', player.play)
  navigator.mediaSession.setActionHandler('pause', player.pause)
  navigator.mediaSession.setActionHandler('nexttrack', player.nextTrack)
  navigator.mediaSession.setActionHandler('previoustrack', player.prevTrack)
  // song and player are instances of state
Then you get those native media controls. Even stuff like "hey google, play/pause/skip"

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#68

Post by transcriptase »

reflexe wrote: post #60

I think that while data is a major point here, in my opinion, these are the reasons apps are preferred by developers: 1. Persistence: while websites are very easy to close, deleting an app is much more difficult and usually requires pressing on some “red buttons” and scary dialogs. It also makes sure the user now has a button for your app on their Home Screen which makes it a lot more accessible. 2. Notifications: wh…

And why does a developer care about those things if not for the fact it means they can collect data even when the user isn’t actively using the service?

Re: Do not download the app, use the website

#70

Post by bramhaag »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #59

I understand but it’s not always with bad intentions. In the Netherlands we have a system called DigiD to login into to most government websites like your taxes and city, etc. When I contracted for the city of Amsterdam I learned they’ve been pushing hard for the DigiD app to two factor authenticate instead of text message, because of contracts Digid charges a lot per text message validation and none for app.

In this case there is also a perceivable benefit for the user. SMS 2FA is vulnerable to sim swapping, this is not possible when TOTPs are delivered in-app. The app is also FOSS [1], so even if you're paranoid you can still inspect what data is sent.

There are also just some things you cannot realistically do in the browser (or over SMS) without having to ship specialised hardware to 18 million people, like reading the NFC chip of your passport. This is needed for DigiD Substantieel and Hoog, which are mandated by the eIDAS regulations.

[1] https://github.com/MinBZK/woo-besluit-broncode-digid-app/

Post reply on HN