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

“It works better in the app”

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 496 posts

Re: “It works better in the app”

#81

Post by dpb001 »

deaton wrote: post #33
brk wrote: post #9

At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high. If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions. If by extension that degrades the value I get from your site, then I just won't use the site, and I won't be contributing to ADU stats you promote to advertisers. Every single company has…

Theres a gym I work out at, and that I have been going to for nearly a year now, and they have an app you can use to check in, schedule classes, whatever. I don't actually know because I never downloaded the app, I just use my phone number to check in every time I go. I don't want more apps on my phone, not for the gym, not for fast food, maybe my bank and the apps I need to communicate with friends and family, but t…

I’m living in peak appification at my gym. It’s one of those 24x7 places and an app is required to unlock the door. I find it amusing that part of the installation process requires me to deny always-on location sharing - why would I need the app to know my location when I’m not at the door?

Re: “It works better in the app”

#82

Post by hermannj314 »

I charitably assume if something can't be been done on a mobile it is because someone was granted an "on a phone" patent or clicking that button on a phone somehow will entitle Apple to 30% of my revenue stream in perpetuity.

I usually don't attribute it to malice or incompetence from hypothetical devs, instead I blame malice or incompetence from hypothetical lawyers.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#83

Post by nunez »

brk wrote: post #9

At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high. If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions. If by extension that degrades the value I get from your site, then I just won't use the site, and I won't be contributing to ADU stats you promote to advertisers. Every single company has…

100% same. So many apps are just a WebView vessel for Crashlytics and Sentry and Dog knows how much more tracking. (My phone is always VPNed into my home network which has DNS-level ad and tracker blocking. This doesn't cover all the bases though.)

Some, like Home Depot, have websites that are terrible and battery-draining enough to make the app nominally useful by comparison.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#84

Post by dmayle »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #47
noir_lord wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I've no interest in native apps to do something that can be done in a web app and if you don't let me do it in a web app I'll bounce and either find someone who can or do without unless there is a seriously compelling use case (I'm not that dogmatic). As a result the only native apps I use on my phone are Kindle, Authy and Firefox because I trust Firefox to prevent apps doing a lot of the sketchy shit locally…

> "do something that can be done in a web app" I'll bite. What important features can only be done in an "app" but not a web app nowadays?

A ton of features work only or better on app:

  - anything privacy sensitive
  - anything processing intense (using optimized binaries)
  - widgets
  - camera and audio based features *can* work, but are more finicky (or outright broken on ios)
  - local storage (exists in web app, short lifetimes on web site)
  - performance/latency sensitive work
  - (I'm less familiar, but probably local sensors, like gps and acceleration)

Re: “It works better in the app”

#85

Post by sleepybrett »

pj_mukh wrote: post #59
brk wrote: post #9

At this point the barrier for me to install an app is pretty high. If you're going to needlessly gate certain functions behind an app that work on a desktop browser (or could work in-browser), then I just won't use those functions. If by extension that degrades the value I get from your site, then I just won't use the site, and I won't be contributing to ADU stats you promote to advertisers. Every single company has…

The flip side is: I have an Audioguide app with reams of fancy of AI features. Even a basic non-AI one is we use GPS in the background to auto-trigger when you approach certain checkpoints on your tour, and we don't want you staring or constantly manually fiddling with the phone when you're on a tour in a neighborhood. This is all stuff just not possible with the web app I get it, "I'm just traveling, why do I need t…

location services are available to web browsers on pretty much all consumer platforms

Re: “It works better in the app”

#86

Post by emursebrian »

As a user, I don't want to install an app if I can do it on the web. Most "apps" these days are just web sites wrapped in an app. What's more, they're usually 100% dependent on REST APIs so there's little advantage to having the app anyway.

As a developer and (web) app vendor, I understand that many users still want apps. I just had a user ask when we'd be releasing our app for iOS. I explained that we did have an app and that it would be identical to what we'd release for iOS. Then I explained the maze of submenus she'd have to click through to get the icon on her home screen.

Apple and Google hate the open web so they make it excessively difficult to "install" PWAs and then in some cases, they're less functional than the website itself. More blame lies at the feet of Apple and Google than on web-first vendors who release sub-optimal apps as a delivery workaround.

We're not releasing apps yet precisely because I want us to be focusing on features. Having to target two additional platforms increases the surface area for testing and takes time away from developing features with the potential cost of releasing a "sub-optimal" app.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#87

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

> This isn't the most complex software engineering task known to humanity. Add a + button. Pop open a text entry field. Validate. Save. Done. I'm sure even the shitty Gemini model can vibe code that in a couple of months, right?

Sick burn.

I tend to prefer using the browser, where possible, eschewing bespoke apps, but I would expect an app to have more functionality than the browser.

It's sad, when it doesn't.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#88

Post by dvduval »

I don’t understand all the technical challenges, but I sure hope we can close the gap between what we can do in the browser versus an app. What apps do is gate communities and gate information and gate people and this is the opposite of an open Internet that should be a benefit to humanity.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#89

Post by breakingcups »

Thanemate wrote: post #17

I recently decided to use my google calendar to track my mood, as part of my CBT therapy. What baffles me is that, there's no way in the web app to assign a default calendar for new events. When I create a new event on the web, I have to scroll through all the calendars that I have and choose the one that I want every time. Meanwhile, in the mobile app, I can simply tap on a new block, the event window appears, and t…

You might like Daylio. It's free, local-first (with optional backups to your own cloud or device), and has a good UX.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#90

Post by LPisGood »

ninjahawk1 wrote: post #66

What’s even worse is intentionally degrading performance for sign-in’s. This is still circumstantial but I’ve been looking into that over the past few weeks. When switching between google accounts on a random app or game, no issue. Quick code, you’re in. When I switch between accounts on Claude on mobile, I have to sign in, enter the code, screen freezes, I sign in again, can’t verify it’s me, I sign again, wait 30 s…

It is possible that Anthropic (and OpenAI for that matter) actually put out some pretty low quality software.

If you’ve used Claude Code for any length of time you’re familiar with all of the strange rendering bugs, freezes, etc. OpenAI is even worse, their horrific software makes it difficult to _pay_ them, which should be top priority for a company.

Post reply on HN