11 ms·

The difference between web and app is trust. A website has write access to my screen, my speakers and my internet connection. Plus limited read access. To keyb

The difference between web and app is trust. A website has write access to my screen, my speakers and my internet connection. Plus limited read access. To keyboard, mouse, device orientation etc. Other rights can be granted (location, cookies etc). It can do all this only as long as it's "open". An app usually has read/write access to large parts of my device. The whole sd-card, raw internet access, the camera, the microphone, ask me for money etc. And it can keep doing so even when it's "closed". We will see the two converge. Websites will have more rights they can ask for. Apps will be better to tame. But trust will keep being the differentiator and they will keep co-existing. There is friendship and there is marriage. Both have their use case.

EduardoBautista 11y ago
You can pretty much deny access to the information you don't want the app to access though.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Not on Android, at least until 6.0 has a noticeable install base (years)
tdkl 11y ago
> An app usually has read/write access to large parts of my device. The whole sd-card, raw internet access, the camera, the microphone, ask me for money etc. On Android.
- aviraldg 11y ago
  Not anymore.
  - dombili 11y ago
    I wouldn't so firmly say "not anymore" when only 15% of Android users[1] are on the latest version of Android almost a year after its release. That number probably won't go any higher over time either because Android's update cycle is a mess. [1] https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      > That number probably won't go any higher over time either because Android's update cycle is a mess. What? People don't upgrade to an older phone. That number has nowhere to go but highter. The upgrade cycle being a mess just make this take more time.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >What? People don't upgrade to an older phone. No, but new phones come out all the time that are STILL using older Android versions. I think it will take around 2-3 years for all new Android phones to come with the latest Android.
      - dombili 11y ago
        By "that number" I meant the percentage of users who're using the latest version of Android. Lollipop's numbers will eventually get higher, but by that time there'll be 2 or 3 newer versions of Android.
benbristow 11y ago
> An app usually has read/write access to large parts of my device. The whole sd-card, raw internet access, the camera, the microphone, ask me for money etc. And it can keep doing so even when it's "closed". The Play Store and installing APK's shows you a full list of permissions that the app will have access to before installing. If you're not happy with it, just don't install the app.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > The Play Store and installing APK's shows you a full list of permissions that the app will have access to before installing. If you're not happy with it, just don't install the app. That's a shitty way to do things. You should be able to revoke access to things the app is asking and still use the (then crippled) app. There are tons of apps who ask way more access rights than they need (obviously not related to their core functions).
  - andybak 11y ago
    Just to note - Android M moves to just in time permissions.
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      Only for apps that use the new API level, unfortunately. Unless they do what cyanogen does and fake the data exposed, which I guarantee Google won't do. It's going to be extraordinarily confusing for users who end up exposing their personal data, thinking that an old-API app will be constrained when running on their new 6.0 OS.
  - andrepd 11y ago
    You can do that, I think. After installing an app you can go the the app settings and disable specific permissions.
    - CountSessine 11y ago
      Where? I don't see that anywhere in my settings. I'd consider installing the Facebook app again if I could yank all of its privileges. I'm 99% certain that this is NOT an option anymore, post 4.4.
arrrg 11y ago
That is such a nerdy perspective, totally stuck in the filter bubble. I don’t think that explains the difference at all. I think it’s about convenience. People don’t want to use apps for the diverse things they do on the web all the time. Apps may be convenient if you use them frequently (and then only marginally, especially with improving speeds and more people paying attention to making websites usable on phones), but if you use something not so often?
- johnhkg 11y ago
  I have observed that non-tech people find the App Icons sitting on their home screens to be very convenient to access a service they use, kinda like bookmarks.
  - arrrg 11y ago
    Sure, I don't think there is one variable that explains everything. There are a multitude of reasons that lead people to decide to use or not to use apps.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  poeple especially don't need apps of 150mb+ each, and premium phones come with limited storage forcing costly upgrades on top of an hefty price. the only competitive advantage for apps is push notifications, and the sooner browsers and phones can build that into a standard the better (including opening the right page when clicking on a specific service notification)
  - jzzskijj 11y ago
    The other thing is privacy. I don't want to give every service a "full access" into my phone. At least I have a feeling, that my privacy is in better hands, if I access services using up-to-date mobile browser (or Tinfoil for Facebook) instead of a native app running on my phone. Looking at the ridiculous number of permissions different apps would require to run on my (Android) phone, using mobile site of the most of the services seems safer choice. Android 6.0 may change this with switchable permissions, tho.
p4bl0 11y ago
I think you are right. And I'll add that on smartphones that are in the low- and mid-range segment, mobile version of websites are often way better than mobile apps. For example on my smartphone (a Wiko Cink Slim), I uninstalled the Twitter and Facebook apps because mobile.twitter.com and m.facebook.com are much quicker and responsive than the Android applications. They also do not request as many permissions, and are more featureful (e.g., Facebook chat works on m.facebook.com while it isn't included in Facebook's app, and rather requires an additional very intrusive shitty app).
tambourine_man 11y ago
A website has write access to my screen, my speakers and my internet connection. And on iOS, even speakers and high bandwidth content are loaded only on a per user request basis.
chisleu 11y ago
Apps have feature capability that websites don't, unfortunately.
superuser2 11y ago
You're referring, of course, to Android's broken and user-hostile permission model. This is not true of iOS.
- samcheng 11y ago
  iOS allows apps to be pretty user-hostile, too. A bunch of apps require location tracking 'always' or 'never' but without an option for 'while using.' Why would I want the Yelp app to know my location when I am not using it?
  - lhl 11y ago
    It's not ideal, but FYI you can manually go into Privacy > Location Services and change to "While Using" for any app.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      I just checked this, and on that page some apps do in fact only offer totally disabled or Always. Seems like an oversight that could be fixed with a software update though.
    - chadgeidel 11y ago
      Not for any app. As the grandparent pointed out, many many apps don't give the "While Using" permission. It's only "Always" or "Never".
      - gergles 11y ago
        These are likely old apps. App Store review guidelines will force them to include "While Using" when updating it, I believe.
  - shawn-butler 11y ago
    This comment makes no sense to me. The "While Using" is a user setting / choice in the Privacy options. It corresponds to kCLAuthorizationStatusAuthorizedWhenInUse authorization status in the SDK. If an app tries to use any of the background location API without the user having previously authorized kCLAuthorizationStatusAuthorizedAlways (and I believe the user is prompted again in a few days after the initial authorization by iOS8+) the app API calls are denied access with an error code representing unauthorized. It has been my experience that adding the "Location updates" background mode capability indicating to Apple that your app requires background location sets off closer review during the app store acceptance process. I have had apps rejected that a reviewer felt did not have a good enough text "reason" for requiring location tracking displayed to the user in the message box. There are many reasons for a Yelp-type app legitimately to know about your location while not in use. It could make better recommendations, limit searches to "local" sites, etc. None of this of course stops iOS itself from "spying" on you. The CLVisit seems to be always recording but experts with more knowledge on that topic than me might know how to turn it off.
dogma1138 11y ago
It's more likely that sites became better at supporting mobile browsers and mobile browsers just became better in general. This all leads to a better mobile browsing experience, javascript runs better on mobiles now, and site developers have learned what works and what doesn't, sites aren't Flash sponges anymore (which was the case even for sites with Mobile support 5 years ago), HTML5 and other W3C standards have taken off, the mobile screens even on low-end devices are usually similar to desktop/laptop screens in resolution. People rarely care about their privacy, they auto accept pretty much anything that an app requests, Apple's lockdown of the permissions might help that case a bit, but again not because of privacy but because of the hassle of having to go into the settings and enable individual access for apps, this doesn't make people care for their privacy just annoyed and can't be bothered. Content distribution and companion apps made sense when you needed to go mobile 5 years ago, when redoing your entire site to support mobile was too expensive and even then it wouldn't be a good experience due to how poor mobile browsers performed back then. Now it makes absolutely no sense, it's another thing you need to support and worry about which costs money, it's much harder to make people download an app than press a link, and in the current "link-content-sharing" (e.g. outbrain) eco systems most sites operate in it makes very little sense since allot of the traffic is generated by those click-baity "25 reasons why Node is now considered harmful" links you have at the bottom of each TechCrunch article. And on top of that even a low-end phone will usually have a 1080p(or close enough) screen, 2GB of RAM (unless it's an Iphone ;)) and a quad/hex core CPU which is more than capable of running pretty much any browser served content today mobile or not.
- davemel37 11y ago
  This is true at the layer of "why mobile browsers are capable of competing and beating app usage today"... the ante to get in the game... But, the reason people are using browsers more than apps is simply because search is becoming the main use case of a smartphone. I never look for an app on my phone beyond my home screen anymore, I just search or voice search my phone and expect it to either direct me to an app on my phone, or a search results page in Google. I dont care where the solution to my need lives, I just want the quickest, easiest access to that solution.
  - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

EduardoBautista 11y ago

You can pretty much deny access to the information you don't want the app to access though.

wlesieutre 11y ago
Not on Android, at least until 6.0 has a noticeable install base (years)

tdkl 11y ago

> An app usually has read/write access to large parts of my device. The whole sd-card, raw internet access, the camera, the microphone, ask me for money etc. On Android.

aviraldg 11y ago
Not anymore.
- dombili 11y ago
  I wouldn't so firmly say "not anymore" when only 15% of Android users[1] are on the latest version of Android almost a year after its release. That number probably won't go any higher over time either because Android's update cycle is a mess. [1] https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    > That number probably won't go any higher over time either because Android's update cycle is a mess. What? People don't upgrade to an older phone. That number has nowhere to go but highter. The upgrade cycle being a mess just make this take more time.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >What? People don't upgrade to an older phone. No, but new phones come out all the time that are STILL using older Android versions. I think it will take around 2-3 years for all new Android phones to come with the latest Android.
    - dombili 11y ago
      By "that number" I meant the percentage of users who're using the latest version of Android. Lollipop's numbers will eventually get higher, but by that time there'll be 2 or 3 newer versions of Android.

benbristow 11y ago

> An app usually has read/write access to large parts of my device. The whole sd-card, raw internet access, the camera, the microphone, ask me for money etc. And it can keep doing so even when it's "closed". The Play Store and installing APK's shows you a full list of permissions that the app will have access to before installing. If you're not happy with it, just don't install the app.

ekianjo 11y ago
> The Play Store and installing APK's shows you a full list of permissions that the app will have access to before installing. If you're not happy with it, just don't install the app. That's a shitty way to do things. You should be able to revoke access to things the app is asking and still use the (then crippled) app. There are tons of apps who ask way more access rights than they need (obviously not related to their core functions).
- andybak 11y ago
  Just to note - Android M moves to just in time permissions.
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    Only for apps that use the new API level, unfortunately. Unless they do what cyanogen does and fake the data exposed, which I guarantee Google won't do. It's going to be extraordinarily confusing for users who end up exposing their personal data, thinking that an old-API app will be constrained when running on their new 6.0 OS.
- andrepd 11y ago
  You can do that, I think. After installing an app you can go the the app settings and disable specific permissions.
  - CountSessine 11y ago
    Where? I don't see that anywhere in my settings. I'd consider installing the Facebook app again if I could yank all of its privileges. I'm 99% certain that this is NOT an option anymore, post 4.4.

arrrg 11y ago

That is such a nerdy perspective, totally stuck in the filter bubble. I don’t think that explains the difference at all. I think it’s about convenience. People don’t want to use apps for the diverse things they do on the web all the time. Apps may be convenient if you use them frequently (and then only marginally, especially with improving speeds and more people paying attention to making websites usable on phones), but if you use something not so often?

johnhkg 11y ago
I have observed that non-tech people find the App Icons sitting on their home screens to be very convenient to access a service they use, kinda like bookmarks.
- arrrg 11y ago
  Sure, I don't think there is one variable that explains everything. There are a multitude of reasons that lead people to decide to use or not to use apps.
LoSboccacc 11y ago
poeple especially don't need apps of 150mb+ each, and premium phones come with limited storage forcing costly upgrades on top of an hefty price. the only competitive advantage for apps is push notifications, and the sooner browsers and phones can build that into a standard the better (including opening the right page when clicking on a specific service notification)
- jzzskijj 11y ago
  The other thing is privacy. I don't want to give every service a "full access" into my phone. At least I have a feeling, that my privacy is in better hands, if I access services using up-to-date mobile browser (or Tinfoil for Facebook) instead of a native app running on my phone. Looking at the ridiculous number of permissions different apps would require to run on my (Android) phone, using mobile site of the most of the services seems safer choice. Android 6.0 may change this with switchable permissions, tho.

p4bl0 11y ago

I think you are right. And I'll add that on smartphones that are in the low- and mid-range segment, mobile version of websites are often way better than mobile apps. For example on my smartphone (a Wiko Cink Slim), I uninstalled the Twitter and Facebook apps because mobile.twitter.com and m.facebook.com are much quicker and responsive than the Android applications. They also do not request as many permissions, and are more featureful (e.g., Facebook chat works on m.facebook.com while it isn't included in Facebook's app, and rather requires an additional very intrusive shitty app).

tambourine_man 11y ago

A website has write access to my screen, my speakers and my internet connection. And on iOS, even speakers and high bandwidth content are loaded only on a per user request basis.

chisleu 11y ago

Apps have feature capability that websites don't, unfortunately.

superuser2 11y ago

You're referring, of course, to Android's broken and user-hostile permission model. This is not true of iOS.

samcheng 11y ago
iOS allows apps to be pretty user-hostile, too. A bunch of apps require location tracking 'always' or 'never' but without an option for 'while using.' Why would I want the Yelp app to know my location when I am not using it?
- lhl 11y ago
  It's not ideal, but FYI you can manually go into Privacy > Location Services and change to "While Using" for any app.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    I just checked this, and on that page some apps do in fact only offer totally disabled or Always. Seems like an oversight that could be fixed with a software update though.
  - chadgeidel 11y ago
    Not for any app. As the grandparent pointed out, many many apps don't give the "While Using" permission. It's only "Always" or "Never".
    - gergles 11y ago
      These are likely old apps. App Store review guidelines will force them to include "While Using" when updating it, I believe.
- shawn-butler 11y ago
  This comment makes no sense to me. The "While Using" is a user setting / choice in the Privacy options. It corresponds to kCLAuthorizationStatusAuthorizedWhenInUse authorization status in the SDK. If an app tries to use any of the background location API without the user having previously authorized kCLAuthorizationStatusAuthorizedAlways (and I believe the user is prompted again in a few days after the initial authorization by iOS8+) the app API calls are denied access with an error code representing unauthorized. It has been my experience that adding the "Location updates" background mode capability indicating to Apple that your app requires background location sets off closer review during the app store acceptance process. I have had apps rejected that a reviewer felt did not have a good enough text "reason" for requiring location tracking displayed to the user in the message box. There are many reasons for a Yelp-type app legitimately to know about your location while not in use. It could make better recommendations, limit searches to "local" sites, etc. None of this of course stops iOS itself from "spying" on you. The CLVisit seems to be always recording but experts with more knowledge on that topic than me might know how to turn it off.

dogma1138 11y ago

It's more likely that sites became better at supporting mobile browsers and mobile browsers just became better in general. This all leads to a better mobile browsing experience, javascript runs better on mobiles now, and site developers have learned what works and what doesn't, sites aren't Flash sponges anymore (which was the case even for sites with Mobile support 5 years ago), HTML5 and other W3C standards have taken off, the mobile screens even on low-end devices are usually similar to desktop/laptop screens in resolution. People rarely care about their privacy, they auto accept pretty much anything that an app requests, Apple's lockdown of the permissions might help that case a bit, but again not because of privacy but because of the hassle of having to go into the settings and enable individual access for apps, this doesn't make people care for their privacy just annoyed and can't be bothered. Content distribution and companion apps made sense when you needed to go mobile 5 years ago, when redoing your entire site to support mobile was too expensive and even then it wouldn't be a good experience due to how poor mobile browsers performed back then. Now it makes absolutely no sense, it's another thing you need to support and worry about which costs money, it's much harder to make people download an app than press a link, and in the current "link-content-sharing" (e.g. outbrain) eco systems most sites operate in it makes very little sense since allot of the traffic is generated by those click-baity "25 reasons why Node is now considered harmful" links you have at the bottom of each TechCrunch article. And on top of that even a low-end phone will usually have a 1080p(or close enough) screen, 2GB of RAM (unless it's an Iphone ;)) and a quad/hex core CPU which is more than capable of running pretty much any browser served content today mobile or not.

davemel37 11y ago
This is true at the layer of "why mobile browsers are capable of competing and beating app usage today"... the ante to get in the game... But, the reason people are using browsers more than apps is simply because search is becoming the main use case of a smartphone. I never look for an app on my phone beyond my home screen anymore, I just search or voice search my phone and expect it to either direct me to an app on my phone, or a search results page in Google. I dont care where the solution to my need lives, I just want the quickest, easiest access to that solution.
- 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]