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

I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

0xsid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 599 posts

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#471

Post by array_key_first »

dingaling wrote: post #245
btilly wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not new. I read a UI book in the early 2000s that cited research showing that most users didn't understand filesystems. They would seem to, but then the idea that the same filename in two places was two unrelated files would just lead to a mental block. Those who got it, didn't find it hard. It's just that some people can't get it. The disconnect is not between some developers, and the younger folks. It is bet…

I can't blame them. We've been force-upgraded to Windows 11 at work and that OS and its apps do their upmost to obscure where files are located. I've frequently saved on OneDrive instead of locally, by accident, and then been perplexed when I try to reopen the file later. And I've been using filesystems for 35+ years, so I feel sympathy for those who don't understand the abstraction. At this point Android is more tra…

> We've been force-upgraded to Windows 11 at work and that OS and its apps do their upmost to obscure where files are located.

That's because there's research that users don't understand filesystems. So then stupid companies who make bad decisions like Microsoft and Apple decide that that means they should pretend filesystems don't exist.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#472

Post by prmoustache »

quesera wrote: post #219
duped wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost never is it useful for an app to have my contacts or location. That said only on some platforms is it possible to stop a native app from getting them.

Android and iOS both require user permission for apps to access contacts or location. Are there other platforms that can't even manage this basic level of user protection?

Not a single platform require permission from each individual contact in your adress book to access them and that is the real problem.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#473

Post by pwr1 »

davebren wrote: post #466
pwr1 wrote: post #363

Yep. If your product needs me to install an app for a one-off thing, you've probably already lost me. The crazy part is how many teams still treat the web as the demo and the app as the “real” product. For a lot of stuff it's the opposite now. I know there are edge cases, but most of the time “download our app” just means “please care way more about our product than you currently do.”

>> The crazy part is how many teams still treat the web as the demo and the app as the “real” product. But that's just the technical reality of what can be implemented on web vs. native because you are within an ephemeral browser tab and have all the restrictions that come with that.

Native has its place for sure — camera, sensors, offline, background tasks. But web has come a long way and for a lot of products it's genuinely enough. The issue is teams defaulting to "build an app" without asking whether the install friction is actually worth it for what they're building.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#474

Post by asadotzler »

Vachyas wrote: post #91
happytoexplain wrote: post #64

My experience might be the minority, but I have found that 95% of the time, when an app is available on both web and native mobile, the native mobile version is significantly better - usually not because it's a fantastic app or has more features, but rather because the web version is more buggy/slow/confusing. Whether I prefer an app to be web or native is purely based on the use case (I probably would choose native…

Yea, webapps (even PWAs) still can't compete with native apps when it comes to responsiveness, but I still don't know why. I've yet to see even a demo PWA that passes the "native turing test" where I can't tell whether it's a native app or not. Even native apps that were built with cross-platform frameworks feel a bit "off" sometimes.

Hard to believe when most apps are just a webview.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#475

Post by array_key_first »

Klonoar wrote: post #389
jmull wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies are seeing this switch, so they adapt. You’re confusing cause and effect here. Companies are pushing apps very hard because it gives them a lot more ability to wield their various revenue enhancing dark patterns. That kids see apps as the primary option is a corporate success metric, not an organic choice. Anyway, the premise that “phone screen ==> native app not web app” is rather faulty, is it not?

They’re not confusing anything, you’re just sticking your head in the sand. The modern entry path to “computing” is small screen devices (phones). Their point of newcomers not having our same entry path is accurate. This is organic, however much we don’t like it. Anything past that is just market skating where the puck is.

Okay but that's not what he's arguing, you're missing the point.

There's nothing stopping a website from being usable on a smartphone. In fact, almost all of these apps are just websites in disguise! They use web views to render.

The reason it's an app and not a website isn't because apps are better for smartphones. It's because apps are native code running.

It's also a choice that websites cannot present as apps (PWAs). Apple and Google purposefully did that so they can push users to apps instead of websites, for data farming purposes.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#476

Post by asadotzler »

AlBugdy wrote: post #437
leptons wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That the server can send you a backdoor every single time, made just for you, and nobody else will ever know? There is no "backdoor" when the browser is sandboxed. "backdoor" is a specific thing, I think you need to read up on it before you keep using it incorrectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing) >On the other hand, an app is sandboxed, too (on mobile OSes like Android and iOS). When you downloa…

It's obvious what GP meant - we can verify that the apps we download are the apps everyone else downloads. We can't do this with Proton where our mail is supposedly end-to-end encrypted. They can easily view our mail if they can send us a different code when we load their site. > That isn't what "sandboxed" means, it has nothing to do with checking hashes. And no, mobile apps are not really sandboxed Apps ARE somewha…

You cannot. An app can update just like a browser tab. In fact, a very many apps are just frickin' webviews.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#477

Post by velocity3230 »

prmoustache wrote: post #472
quesera wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android and iOS both require user permission for apps to access contacts or location. Are there other platforms that can't even manage this basic level of user protection?

Not a single platform require permission from each individual contact in your adress book to access them and that is the real problem.

GrapheneOS allows for this. It's called Contacts Scope.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#478

Post by palata »

asadotzler wrote: post #476
AlBugdy wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obvious what GP meant - we can verify that the apps we download are the apps everyone else downloads. We can't do this with Proton where our mail is supposedly end-to-end encrypted. They can easily view our mail if they can send us a different code when we load their site. > That isn't what "sandboxed" means, it has nothing to do with checking hashes. And no, mobile apps are not really sandboxed Apps ARE somewha…

You cannot. An app can update just like a browser tab. In fact, a very many apps are just frickin' webviews.

Well, you can verify that the code that you downloaded is the same that everyone else downloaded. Even if it contains webviews.

Now if it contains webviews, it brings the security issue of... the webapps, of course.

Personally, I want an open source app. You can audit an open source app and even compile it yourself. You can't really do that with a website. And I don't mean just mobile apps, that applies to desktop apps, too. I wouldn't run a web-based terminal, for instance (do people actually do that?).

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#479

Post by gpvos »

My bank is now doing this: for a few newish and not-quite-essential services you can only use their app, the rest you can still do via the web.

The same has been going on with radio and podcasts for a while: e.g., the BBC, or my newspaper, wants me to install their app to listen to their streams or podcasts, while I much rather concentrate all my listening in one central radio or podcast app for all my sources. Note that a system for paid-only podcast subscriptions via generic podcast apps actually exists, but I've never used it since no podcast maker I listen to actually uses it.

Re: I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

#480

Post by davebren »

pwr1 wrote: post #473
davebren wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The crazy part is how many teams still treat the web as the demo and the app as the “real” product. But that's just the technical reality of what can be implemented on web vs. native because you are within an ephemeral browser tab and have all the restrictions that come with that.

Native has its place for sure — camera, sensors, offline, background tasks. But web has come a long way and for a lot of products it's genuinely enough. The issue is teams defaulting to "build an app" without asking whether the install friction is actually worth it for what they're building.

The friction is mostly learned helplessness it seems since software is easier to install than ever. But it's there nonetheless and the play store discoverability is pretty much gone, so yeah that's why I can't develop mobile only anymore. As a user, in general if the product is a website then I want a site, and if it's an application I use regularly I want an app.
Post reply on HN