8 ms·

Google's developer relations team have done a good job convincing web devs that those APIs are pushed by Google to enable "Amazing PWAs", yet we haven't seen th

by msoad 6y ago

Google's developer relations team have done a good job convincing web devs that those APIs are pushed by Google to enable "Amazing PWAs", yet we haven't seen them used by any major app. People are choosing to download native apps for more sophisticated applications. However Google is pushing those APIs because they know tracking people without cookies in future is a big challenge for them and they need new ways of tracking people. So sad that Google has taken over the web. From the most used browser (Chrome) to the content hijacking (AMP) to the standards (PWA). All to sell you to advertisers.

nojito 6y ago
Rhe fact that people don't realize PWAs are the next push by Google to regain control is shocking. The number of hackernews threads calling out Apple for not supporting PWAs is just as insane.
- untog 6y ago
  I don't really understand: the PWA APIs are W3C APIs, they're not created by one company. Mozilla fully supports them.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Just because they're standards doesn't mean they aren't standards written and promoted chiefly by Google. Mozilla also has pushed back on some of them, despite the fact that... Mozilla supporting them isn't a good argument since most of their revenue also comes from, you guessed it: Google.
    - asjw 6y ago
      I don't have to go full PWA to make useful apps And don't have to go through an app store, creating an account, paying Apple, waiting for their opaque reviews and giving them 30% of whatever amount I make through my app. Android has Firefox, thanks to Apple iOS doesn't.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        I agree app stores need to face antitrust scrutiny... but websites having crazy types of permissions isn't the answer. Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not. Native apps will always be the more private by default option.
        untog 6y ago
        > Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not. Huh? There is no permission prompt for native apps to be able to access the internet. By default they can (and definitely do!) talk to outside servers for analytics etc. It’s just that you can’t see them they way you do on the web.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Actually, most app sandboxes have to request network access as a permission. Unfortunately most mobile OSes don't let you deny it at present. However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines. Meanwhile, once data is on a remote server, you have no control of it. Furthermore, native apps can be retained and often installed after they're no longer supported by their developer. Web apps vanish into the night, and leave you with nothing.
        untog 6y ago
        > However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines. Do you? What would the average user install on their iPhone to allow such intervention? What’s the native equivalent of incognito mode? I won’t argue with you in the retention point but that’s not really related to the privacy discussion at hand.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Interesting thought. I wonder if there's a genuine threat of google "AMP-ifying" PWAs. And by that, I essentially mean Google using their properties to exert control over PWAs, just as they have with web articles and other content. Given Google's virtual stronghold over the web, I'd assume so.
untog 6y ago
You have to build these APIs before people use them, and a lot of what Google has been building into Chrome is stuff native apps can do, so the use-case is clearly there. IMO native apps are capable of far more invasive privacy violations than the web is. But for some reason they're given a very free pass by comparison.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  They're given a very free pass because it's incredibly easy to block a native app from sending data back or even connecting to the internet at all. You have a lot more control over something that's running locally than something running serverside that simply using the client to harvest data.
  - osrec 6y ago
    It's even easier to block a web app - just don't visit its web address. A native app sits on your device, executing all kinds of code, sometimes without your knowledge. With PWAs, the code is more or less open source - all the JS is there for you to inspect - even after obfuscation, you can see the network requests being made in the dev tools of any browser.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      I appreciate that and maybe didn't make my point as best as I could. My point was essentially that you can run a native app without internet access most of the time (and can easily block the app making calls out by switching the internet off or blocking the calls its making) but a web app you have absolutely no control over, you just have to not use it.
      - osrec 6y ago
        That's not true with PWAs. You can have PWAs that operate offline. The problem is that not enough web developers know how to build good offline-only PWAs. But trust me, they're coming!
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
If PWAs die, we will be struck with this duopoly in smartphone OS for foreseeable future as native apps are the ones which help them retain their position. If we want upcoming pure Linux smartphone OS, Sailfish or any other platform which protect the mobile computing from becoming proprietary; we need web apps & PWAs to grow and capture significant market. Apple's treatment towards PWAs has been well known as PWAs are the only threat for its Appstore monopoly in iOS.
- EastSmith 6y ago
  Name three PWA apps please. I know I've built two PWA POC some time ago (using service workers and Notification API), but I've never use any PWA in the wild.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Are you talking specifically about add-to-home-screen / offline capabilities? Because PWA is a very broad term, and most descriptions I've seen consider those features necessary to be a PWA. Ignoring those two, you get damn near every major web app. All of Google's applications, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc.
    - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
      This is a good question. You can enable add-to-home-screen for websites with a single meta tag, <meta name="mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"> e.g. Here's one of my website with that tag[1], Ironically this feature was introduced by Apple and is considered part of PWA specs. But for the sake of this discussion, let's consider PWAs to be one which uses app manifest[2] and uses some high level device features. [1]https://needgap.com https://needgap.com [2]https://web.dev/what-are-pwas/ https://web.dev/what-are-pwas/
      - strbean 6y ago
        Woops! I left off the word "don't" in regards to those features being necessary to be considered PWAs!
bad_user 6y ago
On Android you can use web apps in Firefox, with content blocking powered by uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger. This is because Android allows real Firefox, engine and all and Firefox implements the web push API. This gives you unmatched privacy. As I've said elsewhere too, see this Facebook page listing apps that share data with them via FB's SDK and marvel at how privacy friendly your iOS device really is: https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity The notion that Apple is not implementing the web push API for example, for privacy reasons, is stupid.
- drevil-v2 6y ago
  The problem with having an Android phone is that then you have to actually use the damn thing. On a more serious note though, in iOS 14 app developers are responsible for any SDK's their app uses including data egress.
- danudey 6y ago
  "Your off-Facebook activity is currently turned off." Seems fine to me?
luckylion 6y ago
> However Google is pushing those APIs because they know tracking people without cookies in future is a big challenge for them and they need new ways of tracking people. Why would it be? They have the search data, they know what you clicked on, they have GA on 60-80% of sites, they have plenty of information, tracking and profiling users isn't the issue. Tracking and profiling users legally is what's hard.
suyash 6y ago
Never trust what they say, Google is known to offer so called "free" services for your good, ultimately people realize they are paying with their private data.

by msoad 6y ago

nojito 6y ago

Rhe fact that people don't realize PWAs are the next push by Google to regain control is shocking. The number of hackernews threads calling out Apple for not supporting PWAs is just as insane.

untog 6y ago
I don't really understand: the PWA APIs are W3C APIs, they're not created by one company. Mozilla fully supports them.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Just because they're standards doesn't mean they aren't standards written and promoted chiefly by Google. Mozilla also has pushed back on some of them, despite the fact that... Mozilla supporting them isn't a good argument since most of their revenue also comes from, you guessed it: Google.
  - asjw 6y ago
    I don't have to go full PWA to make useful apps And don't have to go through an app store, creating an account, paying Apple, waiting for their opaque reviews and giving them 30% of whatever amount I make through my app. Android has Firefox, thanks to Apple iOS doesn't.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      I agree app stores need to face antitrust scrutiny... but websites having crazy types of permissions isn't the answer. Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not. Native apps will always be the more private by default option.
      - untog 6y ago
        > Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not. Huh? There is no permission prompt for native apps to be able to access the internet. By default they can (and definitely do!) talk to outside servers for analytics etc. It’s just that you can’t see them they way you do on the web.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Actually, most app sandboxes have to request network access as a permission. Unfortunately most mobile OSes don't let you deny it at present. However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines. Meanwhile, once data is on a remote server, you have no control of it. Furthermore, native apps can be retained and often installed after they're no longer supported by their developer. Web apps vanish into the night, and leave you with nothing.
        untog 6y ago
        > However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines. Do you? What would the average user install on their iPhone to allow such intervention? What’s the native equivalent of incognito mode? I won’t argue with you in the retention point but that’s not really related to the privacy discussion at hand.
spideymans 6y ago
Interesting thought. I wonder if there's a genuine threat of google "AMP-ifying" PWAs. And by that, I essentially mean Google using their properties to exert control over PWAs, just as they have with web articles and other content. Given Google's virtual stronghold over the web, I'd assume so.

untog 6y ago

You have to build these APIs before people use them, and a lot of what Google has been building into Chrome is stuff native apps can do, so the use-case is clearly there. IMO native apps are capable of far more invasive privacy violations than the web is. But for some reason they're given a very free pass by comparison.

breakfastduck 6y ago
They're given a very free pass because it's incredibly easy to block a native app from sending data back or even connecting to the internet at all. You have a lot more control over something that's running locally than something running serverside that simply using the client to harvest data.
- osrec 6y ago
  It's even easier to block a web app - just don't visit its web address. A native app sits on your device, executing all kinds of code, sometimes without your knowledge. With PWAs, the code is more or less open source - all the JS is there for you to inspect - even after obfuscation, you can see the network requests being made in the dev tools of any browser.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    I appreciate that and maybe didn't make my point as best as I could. My point was essentially that you can run a native app without internet access most of the time (and can easily block the app making calls out by switching the internet off or blocking the calls its making) but a web app you have absolutely no control over, you just have to not use it.
    - osrec 6y ago
      That's not true with PWAs. You can have PWAs that operate offline. The problem is that not enough web developers know how to build good offline-only PWAs. But trust me, they're coming!

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

If PWAs die, we will be struck with this duopoly in smartphone OS for foreseeable future as native apps are the ones which help them retain their position. If we want upcoming pure Linux smartphone OS, Sailfish or any other platform which protect the mobile computing from becoming proprietary; we need web apps & PWAs to grow and capture significant market. Apple's treatment towards PWAs has been well known as PWAs are the only threat for its Appstore monopoly in iOS.

EastSmith 6y ago
Name three PWA apps please. I know I've built two PWA POC some time ago (using service workers and Notification API), but I've never use any PWA in the wild.
- strbean 6y ago
  Are you talking specifically about add-to-home-screen / offline capabilities? Because PWA is a very broad term, and most descriptions I've seen consider those features necessary to be a PWA. Ignoring those two, you get damn near every major web app. All of Google's applications, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc.
  - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
    This is a good question. You can enable add-to-home-screen for websites with a single meta tag, <meta name="mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"> e.g. Here's one of my website with that tag[1], Ironically this feature was introduced by Apple and is considered part of PWA specs. But for the sake of this discussion, let's consider PWAs to be one which uses app manifest[2] and uses some high level device features. [1]https://needgap.com https://needgap.com [2]https://web.dev/what-are-pwas/ https://web.dev/what-are-pwas/
    - strbean 6y ago
      Woops! I left off the word "don't" in regards to those features being necessary to be considered PWAs!

bad_user 6y ago

On Android you can use web apps in Firefox, with content blocking powered by uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger. This is because Android allows real Firefox, engine and all and Firefox implements the web push API. This gives you unmatched privacy. As I've said elsewhere too, see this Facebook page listing apps that share data with them via FB's SDK and marvel at how privacy friendly your iOS device really is: https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity The notion that Apple is not implementing the web push API for example, for privacy reasons, is stupid.

drevil-v2 6y ago
The problem with having an Android phone is that then you have to actually use the damn thing. On a more serious note though, in iOS 14 app developers are responsible for any SDK's their app uses including data egress.
danudey 6y ago
"Your off-Facebook activity is currently turned off." Seems fine to me?

luckylion 6y ago

> However Google is pushing those APIs because they know tracking people without cookies in future is a big challenge for them and they need new ways of tracking people. Why would it be? They have the search data, they know what you clicked on, they have GA on 60-80% of sites, they have plenty of information, tracking and profiling users isn't the issue. Tracking and profiling users legally is what's hard.

suyash 6y ago

Never trust what they say, Google is known to offer so called "free" services for your good, ultimately people realize they are paying with their private data.