6 ms·

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, websites that should be just documents are turning into resource-intensive applications, which is frustrating. Gener

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, websites that should be just documents are turning into resource-intensive applications, which is frustrating. Generally I do not want most websites using these features. On the other hand, the web as a runtime is one of the most universal platforms we have. If I run Slack in a browser, I sure do want it to be able to notify me! (Though I wish doing so felt more like the Electron app - I’d rather use my browser than Electron if the UX were similar enough. I already have a browser, I don’t need another per application!) And as an occasional user of less popular mobile platforms (Ubuntu Touch, etc) a more featureful web runtime helps close the gap between those platforms and Android/iOS. I do think it’d be better if these two use cases were more explicitly distinct than they are now, though.

Arcsech 7y ago
It's almost like we shouldn't have tortured a document transfer system until it was able to run full-on applications.
- ironmagma 7y ago
  It's just the amorphousness of life seeping in. People want more things in more contexts, which will always expand scope of the things they use.
- modeless 7y ago
  If operating systems had ever provided security strong enough to run untrusted code, we wouldn't have needed to. It's really a failing of operating system security. Even today no operating system provides an application sandbox as strong and versatile as the browser. Platforms have fallen back on walled gardens (app stores) with centralized control of all code execution to compensate for the deficiencies of their security models. I don't want a future where the only apps I can run have to be signed and approved by Apple ahead of time. The web is the escape hatch.
  - ironmagma 7y ago
    But people still download and run apps every day. Some even prefer it. I doubt that the cause of this migration was due to security concerns -- since when are app developers particularly concerned about the quality of the security controls imposed on them? I suspect the shift was more due to ease of access, both by the user and for the developer, helped along by easier compatibility.
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      App developers care about the barrier to getting users to use their app. The barrier to getting a user to click on a weblink is much, much lower than the barrier to getting them to install an app.
      - millstone 7y ago
        This is one of the largest failings of the App Store providers. They should recognize this installation barrier and work towards fast and ephemeral app installs.
        TheCoelacanth 7y ago
        The two main App Store providers already have products that provide fast, ephemeral app installs: Safari and Chrome.
        AgentME 7y ago
        I think it's great that they don't do a good job there, because it gives a big advantage to a cross-platform open-source open-standards alternative. Though Android does try to address this with Google Play Instant (https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant). I've never encountered it in the wild though.
    - gowld 7y ago
      Users care about security (at least a lot). That's why they don't install every random app that they could.
- AgentME 7y ago
  Would it really be better if we didn't evolve the web, and we had more OS-specific unsandboxed applications and greater fragmentation between OSes (and a stronger incentive for everyone to stick to one OS, like Windows) instead?
  - millstone 7y ago
    Yes, OS-specific applications are good, and we should have more of them. By "sticking to one OS", and apps that follow the OS's conventions, users actually have a chance to develop expertise in those apps. But the web ensures that everyone stays an amateur. While website capabilities have evolved, the web UI itself has regressed. No major UI paradigms have emerged from the web since the 90s (except tabs, arguably). URLs, bookmarks, cmd-F Find, and clicking on links still dominate, except they work worse now compared to the 90s, because of SPAs and lazy loading.
    - AgentME 7y ago
      My point is that if the web didn't evolve, then Windows would have further cemented its position. If people made Windows apps instead of websites, then other operating systems and mobile wouldn't have taken off as much because fewer people would make multiple apps than the number of people in our world who made cross-platform web apps. Also, all of those features that rkagerer complained about would be even more abusable, because in general, Windows apps don't have to ask for permissions to those things. I don't get how someone could complain that it's bad for a web app to be able to ask for permissions to their contacts, and would prefer to have a native app (that can get them silently by default). Maybe you could replace "Windows" with "iOS" in this hypothetical, which would improve the permissions side of things, but I think it's likely that Windows was only supplantable in the first place because of the popularity of things being on the cross-platform web instead of on native Windows apps, and especially as someone without an iOS device, I'd be pretty sour if the effort on the web went purely into a locked-down non-open platform I didn't have. I think the way the web has approached being a universal open-source/open-standard app platform is extremely exciting. The fact that web app buttons look different than iOS/etc buttons is a small price compared to the benefits, and is the sort of thing that can probably be solved within the model once developers think it's important enough to. (I think modern frameworks and/or the web components standard will provide a good base to get more native-like experiences common in the web.)
- duxup 7y ago
  The browser is such a great place as far as running an application goes almost universally. I remember when applications had to be tied to the OS, does it run on unix, linux, some other OS, or hardware... what a pain. If it is a web app it probabbly works most places.
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    ISWYM but I'd be much, much happier if the browser functionality of mainly delivering text and images was kept separate from the application functionality of ... doing bloody everything. I want to turn off the application side of things for my safety (and I do), but too many sites require it unnecessarily to do the most basic tasks of displaying static text and pictures.
    - progval 7y ago
      I kind of wish major browsers would show a banner asking to enable JS, like they did for Flash and Java. This would discourage developers from using JS unless they really need it, and they'll think about graceful degradation. But browsers won't, because they have nothing to gain from it; and it would be way too confusing for many users.
    - duxup 7y ago
      I think that is more about how whomever wants to offer a site wants to offer their content, not the browser itself.
  - progval 7y ago
    > I remember when applications had to be tied to the OS, does it run on unix, linux, some other OS, or hardware... what a pain. And now many are tied to one or two browsers.
- dasil003 7y ago
  I think there are strong Gall's-Law, worse-is-better and business reasons why a proper GUI platform could never have crossed the chasm to universally cross-platform, on-demand delivery, with no single vendor owning it.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The web was originally conceived as an interactive hypermedia platform, not a “document transfer system”. It's true that it has displaced things they were true document or file transfer systems (Gopher, FTP) because it subsumes those functionalities, but it wasn't ever just that.
OrgNet 7y ago
"I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, websites that should be just documents are turning into resource-intensive applications, which is frustrating." I agree but I would be ok with them if they required explicit permission from the user before being allowed.

Arcsech 7y ago

It's almost like we shouldn't have tortured a document transfer system until it was able to run full-on applications.

ironmagma 7y ago
It's just the amorphousness of life seeping in. People want more things in more contexts, which will always expand scope of the things they use.
modeless 7y ago
If operating systems had ever provided security strong enough to run untrusted code, we wouldn't have needed to. It's really a failing of operating system security. Even today no operating system provides an application sandbox as strong and versatile as the browser. Platforms have fallen back on walled gardens (app stores) with centralized control of all code execution to compensate for the deficiencies of their security models. I don't want a future where the only apps I can run have to be signed and approved by Apple ahead of time. The web is the escape hatch.
- ironmagma 7y ago
  But people still download and run apps every day. Some even prefer it. I doubt that the cause of this migration was due to security concerns -- since when are app developers particularly concerned about the quality of the security controls imposed on them? I suspect the shift was more due to ease of access, both by the user and for the developer, helped along by easier compatibility.
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    App developers care about the barrier to getting users to use their app. The barrier to getting a user to click on a weblink is much, much lower than the barrier to getting them to install an app.
    - millstone 7y ago
      This is one of the largest failings of the App Store providers. They should recognize this installation barrier and work towards fast and ephemeral app installs.
      - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
        The two main App Store providers already have products that provide fast, ephemeral app installs: Safari and Chrome.
      - AgentME 7y ago
        I think it's great that they don't do a good job there, because it gives a big advantage to a cross-platform open-source open-standards alternative. Though Android does try to address this with Google Play Instant (https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant). I've never encountered it in the wild though.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Users care about security (at least a lot). That's why they don't install every random app that they could.
AgentME 7y ago
Would it really be better if we didn't evolve the web, and we had more OS-specific unsandboxed applications and greater fragmentation between OSes (and a stronger incentive for everyone to stick to one OS, like Windows) instead?
- millstone 7y ago
  Yes, OS-specific applications are good, and we should have more of them. By "sticking to one OS", and apps that follow the OS's conventions, users actually have a chance to develop expertise in those apps. But the web ensures that everyone stays an amateur. While website capabilities have evolved, the web UI itself has regressed. No major UI paradigms have emerged from the web since the 90s (except tabs, arguably). URLs, bookmarks, cmd-F Find, and clicking on links still dominate, except they work worse now compared to the 90s, because of SPAs and lazy loading.
  - AgentME 7y ago
    My point is that if the web didn't evolve, then Windows would have further cemented its position. If people made Windows apps instead of websites, then other operating systems and mobile wouldn't have taken off as much because fewer people would make multiple apps than the number of people in our world who made cross-platform web apps. Also, all of those features that rkagerer complained about would be even more abusable, because in general, Windows apps don't have to ask for permissions to those things. I don't get how someone could complain that it's bad for a web app to be able to ask for permissions to their contacts, and would prefer to have a native app (that can get them silently by default). Maybe you could replace "Windows" with "iOS" in this hypothetical, which would improve the permissions side of things, but I think it's likely that Windows was only supplantable in the first place because of the popularity of things being on the cross-platform web instead of on native Windows apps, and especially as someone without an iOS device, I'd be pretty sour if the effort on the web went purely into a locked-down non-open platform I didn't have. I think the way the web has approached being a universal open-source/open-standard app platform is extremely exciting. The fact that web app buttons look different than iOS/etc buttons is a small price compared to the benefits, and is the sort of thing that can probably be solved within the model once developers think it's important enough to. (I think modern frameworks and/or the web components standard will provide a good base to get more native-like experiences common in the web.)
duxup 7y ago
The browser is such a great place as far as running an application goes almost universally. I remember when applications had to be tied to the OS, does it run on unix, linux, some other OS, or hardware... what a pain. If it is a web app it probabbly works most places.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  ISWYM but I'd be much, much happier if the browser functionality of mainly delivering text and images was kept separate from the application functionality of ... doing bloody everything. I want to turn off the application side of things for my safety (and I do), but too many sites require it unnecessarily to do the most basic tasks of displaying static text and pictures.
  - progval 7y ago
    I kind of wish major browsers would show a banner asking to enable JS, like they did for Flash and Java. This would discourage developers from using JS unless they really need it, and they'll think about graceful degradation. But browsers won't, because they have nothing to gain from it; and it would be way too confusing for many users.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I think that is more about how whomever wants to offer a site wants to offer their content, not the browser itself.
- progval 7y ago
  > I remember when applications had to be tied to the OS, does it run on unix, linux, some other OS, or hardware... what a pain. And now many are tied to one or two browsers.
dasil003 7y ago
I think there are strong Gall's-Law, worse-is-better and business reasons why a proper GUI platform could never have crossed the chasm to universally cross-platform, on-demand delivery, with no single vendor owning it.
dragonwriter 7y ago
The web was originally conceived as an interactive hypermedia platform, not a “document transfer system”. It's true that it has displaced things they were true document or file transfer systems (Gopher, FTP) because it subsumes those functionalities, but it wasn't ever just that.

OrgNet 7y ago

"I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, websites that should be just documents are turning into resource-intensive applications, which is frustrating." I agree but I would be ok with them if they required explicit permission from the user before being allowed.