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

No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

tommorris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#21

Post by rtpg »

lutusp wrote: post #2

It's a strategy to dismantle the Web, which had the "disadvantage" of being simultaneously free and a level playing field, and replacing it with a loose network of fiefdoms, each a walled garden (a term often used to describe Apple in its entirety). Most of these apps are advertising delivery mechanisms masquerading as utilities. Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to ano…

> Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to another.

I have a hard time believing that considering the prevalence of the "share" button in apps.

There is certainly a "walled garden" problem on iOS, with all the jailbroken nonsense linked to it, but on Android (don't know about MS phones) I can run whatever I want. The app store is just curation, not limitating. Granted there are still some problems with rooting, but they seem to be disappearing from my view. Freedom of expression is still there.

>I think this idea works best with relatively young people who don't clearly understand what they're giving up when they download a proprietary app in order to read what should be a public document.

Could you cite an example where this is really true? I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm just wondering what app locks out what would in another world be completely open info. The only thing I can think of is messangers, but that's more a practical thing than anything (again... access to phone APIs trump idealism).

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#23

Post by lutusp »

rtpg wrote: post #16
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Unfortunately for every clued in person that sees apps for what they are (a return to the past rather than a jump into the future) there are a hundred or more that have no idea about what is at stake here that will happily download your bullshit app.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is at stake? It's not exactly a step into the future but it's not really a step back either, when you consider apps that access phone capabilities (notifications, for example). For me there's also this notion of apps being registered on my phone for specific actions (want to share a photo? Use the facebook app). There are also places where I don't have net access, so having o…

> If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is at stake?

Only the old-style Web, by design a public forum, accessible by everyone in the same way using standards-compliant browsers.

What we're seeing is a plan to convert a very efficient way to share information, but not an efficient way to make money, into something that favors the latter goal over the former.

> They're pretty much the status quo.

That may be, but not so long ago the Web was the status quo -- the free, public forum.

Remember when Tim Berners-Lee complained about the deleterious effect of nonstandard browser extensions? This trend is the ultimate nonstandard browser extension -- it eliminates the browser entirely.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#24

Post by cjh_ »

rtpg wrote: post #21
lutusp wrote: post #2

It's a strategy to dismantle the Web, which had the "disadvantage" of being simultaneously free and a level playing field, and replacing it with a loose network of fiefdoms, each a walled garden (a term often used to describe Apple in its entirety). Most of these apps are advertising delivery mechanisms masquerading as utilities. Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to ano…

> Another role they have is to prevent copying of content or links from one fiefdom to another. I have a hard time believing that considering the prevalence of the "share" button in apps. There is certainly a "walled garden" problem on iOS, with all the jailbroken nonsense linked to it, but on Android (don't know about MS phones) I can run whatever I want. The app store is just curation, not limitating. Granted there…

>I have a hard time believing that considering the prevalence of the "share" button in apps.

In the OP's example this share button would just lead to a message of 'you need to download our app to view this material'

>There is certainly a "walled garden" problem on iOS, with all the jailbroken nonsense linked to it, but on Android (don't know about MS phones) I can run whatever I want. The app store is just curation, not limitating. Granted there are still some problems with rooting, but they seem to be disappearing from my view. Freedom of expression is still there.

AFAIK he wasn't talking about the OS being a walled garden, more that each app was. Not being able to share content between apps, combine the functionality of them, etc.

Being able to run whatever you want doesn't help if the content owners have locked it down to being only viewable in their app.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#26

Post by krichman »

lutusp wrote: post #15
stcredzero wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those tablet apps suck, because the priorities driving them aren't the readers . This means that they'll either lose in the long run, or adapt to serve reader's needs.

I see your point, but if this were true, then cell phone service (another walled garden of separate fiefdoms) would gradually get better instead of worse. But it's getting worse.

I don't think this is correct. It's far more difficult to compete as a cell phone service due to FCC regulations. It's a government granted mono/duopoly.

I expect to see cell service remain complete shit. I don't expect these per-website apps as they exist now to be widely used.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#27

Post by bambax »

> Be told you aren’t allowed to read the website.

Is this true? I've never seen that. Many times the app is heavily suggested, but I've never been locked out of the regular website just because I'm on mobile.

I also believe Mobile Chrome lets you fake a desktop user agent so there's no way for a website to lock out a mobile user.

That said, I totally agree with the OP, these "content apps" are ridiculous and very annoying.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#28

Post by dan1234 »

NZ_Matt wrote: post #17

I absolutely agree with this, I recently removed a bunch of news apps from my phone because I found myself using the browser to read news websites even when I had their app already installed. One of the few advantages of a news app is the occasional notification and even then most the time they are implemented in an annoying fashion. It'd be nice if there was a standard that allowed users to subscribe to push notific…

> In general it'd be nice to see phone OS's opening up their api's to websites and not only apps.

It's hard to see that happening while the OS makers are involved in a "my App Store is bigger than your App Store" war, and they'd risk losing out on that 30% cut of paid apps.

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#29

Post by Sami_Lehtinen »

bambax wrote: post #27

> Be told you aren’t allowed to read the website. Is this true? I've never seen that. Many times the app is heavily suggested, but I've never been locked out of the regular website just because I'm on mobile. I also believe Mobile Chrome lets you fake a desktop user agent so there's no way for a website to lock out a mobile user. That said, I totally agree with the OP, these "content apps" are ridiculous and very ann…

Quora does exactly that, or at least it did on 14.1.2013 (dd-mm-yyyy)

https://plus.google.com/106938703242944328523/posts/4CopSTtW...

Re: No, I'm not going to download your bullshit app

#30

Post by krichman »

rtpg wrote: post #16
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Unfortunately for every clued in person that sees apps for what they are (a return to the past rather than a jump into the future) there are a hundred or more that have no idea about what is at stake here that will happily download your bullshit app.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly is at stake? It's not exactly a step into the future but it's not really a step back either, when you consider apps that access phone capabilities (notifications, for example). For me there's also this notion of apps being registered on my phone for specific actions (want to share a photo? Use the facebook app). There are also places where I don't have net access, so having o…

There's nothing preventing the implementation of sharing via a website (or posting to a URL) instead of an app. There's nothing preventing standard interactions with your phone to be delivered by checking an API instead of requiring an app. You can still use many websites in offline mode.

They are right, pushing for apps can a way to silo data and prevent you from using your phone as a general purpose device. How can you share from the app if they don't bring up the list of intents for you? Can you select which push notifications to receive for a given app or do you get all of them? Etc.

Post reply on HN