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

111–120 of 496 posts

Re: “It works better in the app”

#111

Post by GJim »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #60
goosejuice wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish everyone thought like this. Unfortunately the average user demands an app and thinks they have nothing to hide.

I think the average user doesn't know the app is there to circumvent tracking protections in browsers and doesn't realise the app is most likely just a web page in a wrapper. I was at a car park in UK and you didn't have to install an app, just scan the QR to go to the web page, simple payment. Sadly they then messed it all up by not offering payment through normal services.

> just scan the QR

Lord no!

Scanning a random QR code.... where is the worst it will take you?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrpknqpgzlo

Re: “It works better in the app”

#112

Post by moritonal »

the_bear wrote: post #61

In Google's defense, they weren't the ones that championed the "everything must be an app" movement. My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) pushed cross-platform web apps, but Apple ran a successful marketing campaign to convince everyone that everything on mobile must be a native app for reasons[1]. So we end up with a walled garden of native apps that must be approved by and pay…

Oh don't, I remember being at a Google PWA Conference where they showed a world where you walked up to a coffee machine which served you a website over some local Bluetooth beacons, you asked for a coffee and it made it. It was such a hopeful concept looking back.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#113

Post by alkonaut »

I don't mind apps, even apps that are basically just browsers showing a web site. The biggest reason is that apps, at least on iOS, just behaves better. It might be that the auth persists longer or that there are notifications or whatever.

It's not without issues obviously. Most of the time the first thing I have to do is update the damn app just to order a burger or park my car or whatever it is I'm using it for. And it's dumb that we need to have a 150 meg download (per update...) for what's basically a bookmark.

But still, the better integration with my phone's native stuff like keychain etc usually means I'm more satisfied after using an app to do something, than using the _exact same web page_ in my mobile browser.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#114

Post by dymk »

jen20 wrote: post #36
davidmurdoch wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not it. It's Apple. They are crippling the web on purpose. We can't even have haptic vibration on Safari. And when we did for a little while earlier this year, it was because of a "bug" that that they promptly fixed. Apple is not interested in making with apps as seamless and integrated as native because: money.

As an iPhone user: good. There is no good that can come from some dipshit website product manager being able to make my phone vibrate on a website. None at all.

Parent comment is talking about PWA APIs that only show up when the PWA is added to the Home Screen, not via safari.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#116

Post by p3rls »

the_bear wrote: post #61

In Google's defense, they weren't the ones that championed the "everything must be an app" movement. My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) pushed cross-platform web apps, but Apple ran a successful marketing campaign to convince everyone that everything on mobile must be a native app for reasons[1]. So we end up with a walled garden of native apps that must be approved by and pay…

[dead]

Re: “It works better in the app”

#117

Post by rcxdude »

dmayle wrote: post #84
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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)

It's a shrinking area: You can get GPS, accelerometer, etc inputs from a web app nowadays. From my own experience the main areas that are tricky are related to automatically finding and connecting to devices: you can do bluetooth at least, but there's things an app can do with wifi and local connection protocols you can't easily do with a web app.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#118

Post by LPisGood »

FatherOfCurses wrote: post #103
LPisGood wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What really grinds my gears is when the app is a _broken_ version of the website. I find the app really expects you to be on the happy path in a way the website does not. Uhaul is a great example of this. The app looks a little better on mobile, but if you don’t make an account and search by reservation ID, all features related to things like extending a reservation time are nonfunctional. I have to go to the mobile…

UHaul is the only app I've ever encountered that is less efficient than talking to a human being behind a counter. I have tried multiple times to pick up a reservation via the app and it has taken so long or failed at some point that I had to walk into the store anyway. And it wants a photo of my license EVERY GODDAMN TIME. And no I can't store a photo of my license on my phone and just upload it - it has to take a p…

Their scheduling software is also blatantly broken. I understand the difficulty in monitoring a large distributed fleet, but their software loves to say trucks are unavailable where a quick phone call reveals they can accommodate the exact request.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#119

Post by tpmoney »

bel8 wrote: post #73
tpmoney wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burger menu -> share -> add to home screen is difficult? How do you pin a web app in Android then?

How is "share" intuitive here? I want to pin the app, not share. That seems purposefully misplaced. As usual with malicious compliance. In Android: Menu > Install and create shortcut. Much cleaner, intentional, and visible with a single click for me.

It’s intuitive in as much as anything on smart phones is, because the share menu is the OS mechanism for sending data from any iOS app to somewhere else. You use the same menu to save a file to Dropbox, put a photo into a note, add a bookmark etc. Effectively if you want to take something that lives in an app and have it live somewhere else, you use the share menu.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#120

Post by edent »

moritonal wrote: post #112
the_bear wrote: post #61

In Google's defense, they weren't the ones that championed the "everything must be an app" movement. My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) pushed cross-platform web apps, but Apple ran a successful marketing campaign to convince everyone that everything on mobile must be a native app for reasons[1]. So we end up with a walled garden of native apps that must be approved by and pay…

Oh don't, I remember being at a Google PWA Conference where they showed a world where you walked up to a coffee machine which served you a website over some local Bluetooth beacons, you asked for a coffee and it made it. It was such a hopeful concept looking back.

They even called it "Physical Web". It was a lovely concept - even if it did abuse Bluetooth beacons somewhat.
Post reply on HN