6 ms·

> I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. Do you think that web apps are better in that r

by vesak 8y ago

> I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. Do you think that web apps are better in that regard?

adventured 8y ago
Yes, drastically. Wikipedia and Hacker News don't have access to the contents of my phone or desktop, just as they don't have access to the contents of my home or mailbox.
da_chicken 8y ago
Yes. I don't give them permission to run code on my device arbitrarily and perpetually. Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all?
- woogle 8y ago
  While I agree on your point, your comment made me smile as I’m reading HN using a mobile app
  - djhalon 8y ago
    I'm curious, did you start using HN with the mobile app or migrate to it after you realized the usefulness of the website?
    - wholinator2 8y ago
      I migrated to the mobile app after discovering the site. I find the app greatly increases the readability of the site by adding just a few more colors, some icons for particularly popular threads, and a palatable dark mode.
      - laurentl 8y ago
        Which app are you using? There are quite a few on the Apple store.
      - airstrike 8y ago
        You could always use https://github.com/openstyles/stylus https://github.com/openstyles/stylus to customize HN looks like
        StavrosK 8y ago
        Oh wow, this is fantastic, thanks! I wonder if I can run it on FF mobile to make the site more friendly. EDIT: I can, awesome. If anyone has a good theme to suggest, that would be fantastic.
      - choward 8y ago
        So nothing that couldn't be solved by a better mobile friendly web site?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all? HN essentially is a service that provides only a couple of text views to list and read submittions and their discussions, and requires zero processing or interaction. That's hardly a challenging problem that requires a fat client. If however we were discussing an application that required significant data processing, access to your personal data, or even access to photo ir video input... You'd hardly be able to implement something with HTML+CSS. Case in point: twitter is very usable as a website but instagram is not.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    They wouldn’t have to change much about Instagram to make it into Twitter.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      If you take away those features then you cease to have instagram. Instagram users only use instagram because it provides access to those functionalities.
      - code_duck 8y ago
        What functionality are you referring to? The only one I can think of is photo editing. It’s not that difficult to make a photo editor in the browser. The only problem is performance. It would’ve been harder when Instagram was originally launched.
  - bgarbiak 8y ago
    Instagram is perfectly usable as a website, at least on an iPhone. I guess some features might be missing, but the core stuff is there: browsing, adding photo, filters, stories.
    - sosborn 8y ago
      How do you post a photo on instagram in a web browser? I thought that was reserved for the app.
- wvenable 8y ago
  Given that all websites are running code on your device, that seems like a distinction with a very small difference. The question is what has the better sandbox to protect yourself. The web is definitely better but somehow I still get tracked across sites and shown "relevant" ads. Mobile apps are also fairly well sandboxed and yet some apps that need your permission to do something useful also use that permission to do evil. As web applications get more powerful, they will become a greater and greater source of the issues that currently plague mobile apps.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Most mobile apps are really just glorified websites that don't need anything above and beyond the web sandbox. But they're going to ask for those permissions anyway, because when an app is the only way to use a sufficiently popular service, people will grant them.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    It is much easier when being nice is enforced by a third party - in other words, the webpage might have an interest in taking all your cycles, but the browser app has an interest in the opposite (battery life and whatnot). So far, this seems to work well - for all the gripes of FB Messenger taking all the CPU and requiring every permission in the known universe, the FB mobile web gets adequately sandboxed by the browser. (I am aware that the Android app model has also promised some sandboxing, but apparently even in a low-permission mode, the protection seems to be rather anemic)
ecp9 8y ago
On the web I can install ublock origin, privacybadger, and a vpn. Even if you ignore the phone's personal data aspect that's a 99% improvement over mobile.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I can easily put an anti-tracking filter on my phone's web browser. Can't easily do the thing for apps.

by vesak 8y ago

> I don't have time to research whether or not they are going to abuse my privacy or have some horrendous TOS. Do you think that web apps are better in that regard?

adventured 8y ago

Yes, drastically. Wikipedia and Hacker News don't have access to the contents of my phone or desktop, just as they don't have access to the contents of my home or mailbox.

da_chicken 8y ago

Yes. I don't give them permission to run code on my device arbitrarily and perpetually. Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all?

woogle 8y ago
While I agree on your point, your comment made me smile as I’m reading HN using a mobile app
- djhalon 8y ago
  I'm curious, did you start using HN with the mobile app or migrate to it after you realized the usefulness of the website?
  - wholinator2 8y ago
    I migrated to the mobile app after discovering the site. I find the app greatly increases the readability of the site by adding just a few more colors, some icons for particularly popular threads, and a palatable dark mode.
    - laurentl 8y ago
      Which app are you using? There are quite a few on the Apple store.
    - airstrike 8y ago
      You could always use https://github.com/openstyles/stylus https://github.com/openstyles/stylus to customize HN looks like
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        Oh wow, this is fantastic, thanks! I wonder if I can run it on FF mobile to make the site more friendly. EDIT: I can, awesome. If anyone has a good theme to suggest, that would be fantastic.
    - choward 8y ago
      So nothing that couldn't be solved by a better mobile friendly web site?
geezerjay 8y ago
> Think of it like this: If Hacker News required a fat client to function on your desktop, would you actually be here at all? HN essentially is a service that provides only a couple of text views to list and read submittions and their discussions, and requires zero processing or interaction. That's hardly a challenging problem that requires a fat client. If however we were discussing an application that required significant data processing, access to your personal data, or even access to photo ir video input... You'd hardly be able to implement something with HTML+CSS. Case in point: twitter is very usable as a website but instagram is not.
- code_duck 8y ago
  They wouldn’t have to change much about Instagram to make it into Twitter.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    If you take away those features then you cease to have instagram. Instagram users only use instagram because it provides access to those functionalities.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      What functionality are you referring to? The only one I can think of is photo editing. It’s not that difficult to make a photo editor in the browser. The only problem is performance. It would’ve been harder when Instagram was originally launched.
- bgarbiak 8y ago
  Instagram is perfectly usable as a website, at least on an iPhone. I guess some features might be missing, but the core stuff is there: browsing, adding photo, filters, stories.
  - sosborn 8y ago
    How do you post a photo on instagram in a web browser? I thought that was reserved for the app.
wvenable 8y ago
Given that all websites are running code on your device, that seems like a distinction with a very small difference. The question is what has the better sandbox to protect yourself. The web is definitely better but somehow I still get tracked across sites and shown "relevant" ads. Mobile apps are also fairly well sandboxed and yet some apps that need your permission to do something useful also use that permission to do evil. As web applications get more powerful, they will become a greater and greater source of the issues that currently plague mobile apps.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Most mobile apps are really just glorified websites that don't need anything above and beyond the web sandbox. But they're going to ask for those permissions anyway, because when an app is the only way to use a sufficiently popular service, people will grant them.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  It is much easier when being nice is enforced by a third party - in other words, the webpage might have an interest in taking all your cycles, but the browser app has an interest in the opposite (battery life and whatnot). So far, this seems to work well - for all the gripes of FB Messenger taking all the CPU and requiring every permission in the known universe, the FB mobile web gets adequately sandboxed by the browser. (I am aware that the Android app model has also promised some sandboxing, but apparently even in a low-permission mode, the protection seems to be rather anemic)

ecp9 8y ago

On the web I can install ublock origin, privacybadger, and a vpn. Even if you ignore the phone's personal data aspect that's a 99% improvement over mobile.

greglindahl 8y ago
I can easily put an anti-tracking filter on my phone's web browser. Can't easily do the thing for apps.