3 ms·

I happen to prefer the exactly opposite - I don't want to run the browser (or a browser-wrapper), I want app to be native. <rant>Websites lack solid, consisten

I happen to prefer the exactly opposite - I don't want to run the browser (or a browser-wrapper), I want app to be native. <rant>Websites lack solid, consistent and platform-native look-and-feel. They are always limited, they aren't integrated with the operating system (i.e. task switcher), they are slow on almost anything (because modern web browsers are ugly giant behemoths. I've recently built myself a very beefy machine (16-core CPU, 128GiB RAM) and even now _sometimes_ sites are still choppy. On mobile, lots of sites are performing poorly.</rant>

hombre_fatal 8y ago
Perhaps the best features about the web, though, are the share-centric nature of being able to pass around a link, the control we have over the client, and the distribution of apps and info that's least encumbered by gatekeepers. For example, let's go all the way to the other end of the spectrum where the web as we know it didn't take off and everything was siloed into native apps that you had to download from the App Store before trying something new. That seems pretty grim to me. I think we're in a sweet spot and lucky to have both.
ddingus 8y ago
Both are just fine. For me, on mobile, it takes a LOT to bother with an app. Any alternative, even close to reasonable, gets the nod every time. On a PC, this is less of an issue. Applications will often have great, or superior functionality. No worries. On mobile? No. The opposite is nearly always true. Should have been clear. As for solid platform look and feel... depends there too. If the UX is really optimized for the task, I will take it. Have used so many now. Almost non issue there. Generally I dislike app stores. This favors PC too.