3 ms·

It really bothers me that “Progressive Web Apps” are a thing. If Apple and Google allowed it, there’s no need for a new paradigm - just let the browser handle i

It really bothers me that “Progressive Web Apps” are a thing. If Apple and Google allowed it, there’s no need for a new paradigm - just let the browser handle it. The same way slack sends notifications over the browser on desktop, we could make use of. Instead they want to control the interface, likely for their own gain, but also som added security. So, I get it. However, the whole buzz word and excitement is good, but it’s annoyingly stifled to begin with

zozbot123 8y ago
Progressive Web Apps are handled by the browser. The main difference wrt. "web apps" is that they're not presented to the user with a "web-site" UX. See https://xkcd.com/1367/ https://xkcd.com/1367/ for a summary of why that's a good thing.
IvanK_net 8y ago
Web Apps are handled by browsers. But it is mentioned as iOS update, because the only allowed browser in iOS is Safari, so only Apple is able to control, how good web browsing in iOS is. All other iOS "browsers" as Chrome, Firefox or Edge, are just wrappers around Safari.
IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
I don’t quite getting what you are objecting to. Slack cannot send you notifications when you’re not on the website, unless they have access to one of the APIs commonly bundled under the PWA umbrella. Is it just the name you’re objecting to? Do you believe it’s a bad idea to strive for feature parity between native apps and the web? I seriously can’t tell.
- lettergram 8y ago
  Two things: 1. Apple and google are going to set a new set of APIs. And likely edge out the importance of other browsers. 2. They went the app route to begin with... they could have always gone the PWA route (especially the last few years). I don’t know why I have to have a native app if the entire web is now mobile friendly.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lowtolerance 8y ago
    For what it’s worth, Apple didn’t go the app route to begin with. They were all in on web apps on the iPhone, and had no plans to allow native app development until developers demanded it. The iPhone didn’t have native app support until around a year after it’s release. They thought browsers had the capabilities necessary to make web apps mobile friendly enough to fill the need at the time, but that was overly-optimistic.

zozbot123 8y ago

Progressive Web Apps are handled by the browser. The main difference wrt. "web apps" is that they're not presented to the user with a "web-site" UX. See https://xkcd.com/1367/ https://xkcd.com/1367/ for a summary of why that's a good thing.

IvanK_net 8y ago

Web Apps are handled by browsers. But it is mentioned as iOS update, because the only allowed browser in iOS is Safari, so only Apple is able to control, how good web browsing in iOS is. All other iOS "browsers" as Chrome, Firefox or Edge, are just wrappers around Safari.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

I don’t quite getting what you are objecting to. Slack cannot send you notifications when you’re not on the website, unless they have access to one of the APIs commonly bundled under the PWA umbrella. Is it just the name you’re objecting to? Do you believe it’s a bad idea to strive for feature parity between native apps and the web? I seriously can’t tell.

lettergram 8y ago
Two things: 1. Apple and google are going to set a new set of APIs. And likely edge out the importance of other browsers. 2. They went the app route to begin with... they could have always gone the PWA route (especially the last few years). I don’t know why I have to have a native app if the entire web is now mobile friendly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lowtolerance 8y ago
  For what it’s worth, Apple didn’t go the app route to begin with. They were all in on web apps on the iPhone, and had no plans to allow native app development until developers demanded it. The iPhone didn’t have native app support until around a year after it’s release. They thought browsers had the capabilities necessary to make web apps mobile friendly enough to fill the need at the time, but that was overly-optimistic.