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

281–290 of 496 posts

Re: “It works better in the app”

#281

Post by mrweasel »

ethin wrote: post #244

Hot take but I think the entire concept of a "web app" needs to die. My web browser does not need access to my GPU, OpenGL/Vulkan, USB, MIDI, HID, . All of those are things a native app needs, not a website. IMO if you need that kind of access and your instinct is to do it as a "web app" your doing it wrong. Same thing, I would argue, for things even like WebAudio or WebSpeech. At this point my web browser is so comp…

For many of these things we're not talking about a web app though. It's frequently just a form, disguised as something more. I agree that the browser should be stripped back, but none of those things prevent my banks website from allowing me to do a payment.

E.g. your fitness tracking app or your parking app, they don't need any of those features. They can work perfectly fine as simply forms, they aren't "apps".

Re: “It works better in the app”

#282

Post by goosejuice »

vel0city wrote: post #248
goosejuice wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers don't care. QR is easier for them and owners get analytics plus built in table identified ordering. I brought up the attack vector to a table full of developers back when this was taking off, just shrugs.

> owners get analytics They'll get analytics from digital menus regardless of if a QR code is scanned or not. The QR code isn't really making a difference here, other than maybe adding in a specific table ID. > built in table identified ordering...attack vector Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before. They're going…

The analytics are very different when you have locality built in. You know exactly how many times your menu was scanned in house.. how long they spent on the page etc has much more meaning. An open website mixes traffic.

I'm not promoting QR codes here. When I can avoid them I do. It's just that the incentives for owners and consumers are better with them and that's the challenge.

> Oh no, they're going to know table 36 ordered the appetizer sampler and a few beers. The horror. They couldn't have possibly known that before

I have no idea what you're on about here. I'm clearly referring to quishing to collect payment info. It's very easy to copy a website and plop a QR code onto a picnic table over the old one.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#283

Post by vel0city »

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)

> anything privacy sensitive

I'd actually prefer that stuff stay in a browser and far away from my local storage on a device I take everywhere. Seems far riskier having it locally.

> anything processing intense

I can play Half-Life 2 in a browser window these days. I can do photo editing and CAD in the browser. I can have entire IDEs in the browser, compilers, non-linear video editors, and more. We're also kind of scoping this to phone apps, they're usually not very processing intense as you quickly hit heat and battery limits.

> camera and audio based features can work, but are more finicky (or outright broken on ios)

Sounds more like an overly restricted OS than anything else.

> local storage (exists in web app, short lifetimes on web site)

Once again, sounds like an overly restricted OS than a browser issue.

> (I'm less familiar, but probably local sensors, like gps and acceleration)

https://sensor-js.xyz/demo.html https://openstreetmap.org < works fine

Re: “It works better in the app”

#284

Post by nickff »

Intermernet wrote: post #235

I recently had a perfect storm of non-friendly technology. I made one purchase on Amazon while connected to a VPN. Amazon froze my account and demanded proof of identity. Amazon don't accept an existing photo of primary ID for their preferred ID verification check, it must be a photo taken by a camera on-device, and I don't have a webcam on my desktop PC. Once you select the secondary method, it seems you can't go ba…

>”Amazon don't accept an existing photo of primary ID for their preferred ID verification check, it must be a photo taken by a camera on-device, and I don't have a webcam on my desktop PC”

In my experience, it was not possible to complete the verification via computer, even with a webcam. The verification site assumes and seems to require that you use a cellphone.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#285

Post by Intermernet »

inigyou wrote: post #242
Intermernet wrote: post #235

I recently had a perfect storm of non-friendly technology. I made one purchase on Amazon while connected to a VPN. Amazon froze my account and demanded proof of identity. Amazon don't accept an existing photo of primary ID for their preferred ID verification check, it must be a photo taken by a camera on-device, and I don't have a webcam on my desktop PC. Once you select the secondary method, it seems you can't go ba…

Just make a new account at that point, right?

My Amazon account is, unfortunately, tied to AWS, Prime, Kindle as well as online shopping. I hate this, and I'm in the process of removing all of my stuff from all of these services.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#286

Post by tescreal »

GJim wrote: post #238
tescreal wrote: post #193

If the barrier to entry is "own a smartphone", there will inevitably be people who will be excluded. Lots of fantastic reasons to unplug in 2026, year of our plague. Even if you don't go so far, conservative allowances for data collection are one of the few digital freedoms left.

Puzzling to see your factual comment downvoted. I myself do not have a personal smartphone (and my work smartphone is powered off the moment the clock says 5pm). Frankly, my life is better for it.

I never know unless somebody thinks I was(n't) being sarcastic or glib or something. I try to be straight forward because fundamentally, I don't like the "obligation to be online" for how much I personally enjoy tech. C'est la vie!

Re: “It works better in the app”

#287

Post by onetrickwolf »

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…

I am the same way but sadly I think average people seem to be the opposite. I’ve seen people asked to do something on some site and their instinct is to go straight to the App Store and search the site there vs using their web browser.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#288

Post by Zak »

barrell wrote: post #171
sroussey wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is the worst. You go to a page and scroll down and it banners a beater in the app thing and you can’t dismiss it. You either get the app or close the tab. Close the tab.

Idk Google Maps is pretty bad. Clicking on the search bar force opens the App Store, and trying to load photos does the same and straight up lies to you saying it’s only available in the app. But if you scroll down to the second carousel of images it loads fine in web.

Google Maps has a better excuse for wanting to be an app than most since a primary use case on mobile is turn-by-turn navigation. That's possible to do in a web page now, but several features that improve the experience are not available in browsers.

Re: “It works better in the app”

#289

Post by fridder »

mrec wrote: post #239
inigyou wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you following that's so important?

A small assortment of people that I found interesting/insightful/amusing at some point, plus a few local orgs occasionally announcing things. Why does anything need to be "so important"?

because, basically, why paint Elmo's fence?

Re: “It works better in the app”

#290

Post by GJim »

mrec wrote: post #239
inigyou wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you following that's so important?

A small assortment of people that I found interesting/insightful/amusing at some point, plus a few local orgs occasionally announcing things. Why does anything need to be "so important"?

Without wishing to sound trite, what interesting/insightful/amusing people are still on that platform?

Ditto local organisations announcing things: are there any respectable originations (such as local government and sports groups) that still wish to be associated with the cesspool Xitter has become?

Post reply on HN