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

221–230 of 496 posts

Re: “It works better in the app”

#221

Post by inigyou »

radicalbyte wrote: post #213
jader201 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am the customer, not the product dammit. That’s an illusion that died a long time ago, unfortunately. Just because you’re using their service on a browser doesn’t stop them from harvesting data from your usage, especially if you’re logging in (and if you’re using their services, chances are that you are). Using browser over app can help, but it doesn’t eliminate it. Like it or not, we’re the product, and I don’t…

They're not able to spy on all the other websites I visit or apps I use via the browsers in the way they are by forcing me to install spyware on the spyware machines from Apple and Google.

Chrome supports invasive APIs like WebUSB for a reason.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#222

Post by avidiax »

padjo wrote: post #178
Quarrelsome wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone is allowed to take their own risks. I don't pay for contents insurance. I'm up around a $1000 on that bet so far.

If the lose isn't going to dramatically impact your financial wellbeing then insurance is always an irrational bet.

It's not irrational if you know that the insurance company has mispriced your policy, and filing a claim won't be more trouble than it's worth.

Getting a contents policy in a safe neighborhood where you know that there's little risk is likely not a good deal. Getting a contents policy when you've learned that your neighbors are getting into hard drugs is probably a good deal.

Paying $19/mo for third-party full coverage + theft on your $1,000 mobile phone is probably not a good deal even if you know you are high risk, for the simple reason that at $19, they game must be that they will find any reason to refuse to pay, and will give you a poorly refurbished phone for your troubles if you make them honor the insurance.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#224

Post by Whatarethese »

m463 wrote: post #184
mapontosevenths wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your app is just a webpage that forces me to use an app just so you can spy on me I just won't use your product. I've switched brokers over it, I swapped banks, I stopped shopping at certain stores. I'm done. The only say I have is in how I spend my money. Those companies won't get any of mine if I can help it. I am the customer, not the product dammit.

Can't buy a tesla without the app. Worse, to sell a tesla, you are the person saying "ok, install the app, then I can transfer ownership to you, conveniently!" and this is getting normalized with other car manufacturers. (and it ALL goes back to apple... who started the whole app nonsense, and promoted a look-and-feel that gave tesla a terrible tap and swipe iphone/ipad type ui in a moving car)

You can absolutely buy a Tesla and operate it for the life of the vehicle without an app or even a smartphone. They have key fobs and keycards for this purpose. Go into the store or order online. Everything can be handled by the Tesla store if you are selling the car and need to transfer it to another person.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#225

Post by badc0ffee »

emursebrian wrote: post #86

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 ap…

> Apple and Google hate the open web so they make it excessively difficult to "install" PWAs

On iOS, is it not just a matter of tapping the "send" button and tapping [+] Add to Home Screen?

Re: “It works better in the app”

#226

Post by Finnucane »

gchamonlive wrote: post #43

The author said it perself, "the greatest minds of our generation" working at Google, so those jagged edges are surely by design, and it's the rational most efficient solution in a economy of attention where the line between the product and the user is blurred.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness

Re: “It works better in the app”

#227

Post by GuestFAUniverse »

Google Dev are incompetent it seems. Had "highlights" for June and July in photos. Guess what is disabled in my account? I had to set two dates explicitly: one in the early past and one in the distant future -- now I seems to work.

And the new icons of their apps look like a kindergarden project. Can't they just leave the design alone, or ask the user? Seems impossible.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#228

Post by jinimojkg »

virtyaluk wrote: post #106

I noticed a long time ago that Google apps are designed by people who never actually use them. Here's one example. I'm a big fan of reading, and it happened that I stack dozens and dozens of books on my GDrive, so naturally I use mobile Google Drive to download and send those books to the reader app on my iDevices. Finished books are renamed to have an exclamation mark at the beginning of the file name - that puts th…

Yep. Google’s apps are the prime example of astonishingly bad UX and terribly nonsensical UI. What’s funnier is that they all somehow manage to feel like both a badly realised rip-off wannabe native iOS app all the while feeling like a complete alien to the entire system.

It’s just BIZARRE. Google apps and services are such a travesty; I detest that people have become so accustomed to them they’re basically the norm. Google sucks. Period.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#229

Post by inigyou »

mikepurvis wrote: post #218
4chandaily wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some, like Home Depot, have websites that are terrible and battery-draining enough to make the app nominally useful by comparison. I don't take this as a signal to install the app. It is a signal to avoid the store. They clearly don't feel like they need to work to gain your business, and instead take it for granted. You can see this indicated by their actions - they clearly feel that it is more profitable to inconv…

There are a lot of businesses that have a semi-captive hold on a market. Like a recent example was I drove my daughter and I to a stage play, and to pay for street parking I had to install an app, make an account, and add a credit card. A thing that should have been scan the QR code and click one button to mobile pay became a five minute ordeal. In theory we could have gotten back in the car and looked for parking el…

It should have been put coins in a slot.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#230

Post by inigyou »

spicyjpeg wrote: post #176
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…

A particularly worrying trend that keeps spreading is the one of restricting significant amounts of (often non-financial) functionality to the apps only, gated behind your phone passing device integrity checks, in what seems to be a poorly thought out attempt at blocking all forms of scraping and automation (AI or not). The worst offender right now is probably Twitter, which alongside the recent Nitter cease-and-desi…

You can just make an account on a phone and give the login info to Nitter (your own instance), it still works.
Post reply on HN