3 ms·

What I don't understand is why Threads is app-only. Possibly 80% of the tweets I consume are embedded in news articles, and sometimes I click on them and end on

What I don't understand is why Threads is app-only. Possibly 80% of the tweets I consume are embedded in news articles, and sometimes I click on them and end on Twitter's website, where I then hang around for a couple of minutes. I have no Twitter app installed on any device and like it that way, which means that I won't ever see any of Threads' content.

jacquesm 3y ago
Because an app is not the web. And the web is anathema to a properly walled garden.
- qwertox 3y ago
  Sure, but I mean in relation to Twitter, which in that sense is not a walled garden.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Twitter is very much a walled garden and is in that sense rapidly becoming more so, especially because Elon Musk is dreaming of making the Twitter app into the 'everything' app that will be a platform for all your comms and commercial transactions. AOL next gen.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      It's also not a "fair" comparison because twitter was born before smartphone penetration and the "mobile first" thing. They launched on the web first, like Facebook, and probably would love to wall things off more and lock out the web, but can't now. (Though Musk clearly made an effort a couple weeks ago by requiring log in to view any tweets, he's had to partially roll that back, though not fully) When I went looking at any of the various new social network startups that have tried to get into the market all of them -- except the fediverse/open-source/hacker type projects -- were mobile only, even some after years of being on the market. Clearly highly motivated to keep a mobile-only moat around things.
johnbatch 3y ago
Just had to double check. There is a “copy link” and “get embed code” on every thread. Example: https://www.threads.net/t/Cuh5XzipVyS https://www.threads.net/t/Cuh5XzipVyS
- red_trumpet 3y ago
  Where do you see the "get embed code"? I found "copy link" under the three dots in the upper right corner, but no embed code. Is it because I'm from EU and so I can't access the share menu?
- qwertox 3y ago
  Interesting, thanks. But then it requires fbcdn.net to be whitelisted in the DNS server, which I won't do. But checking with a proxied browser also gives a limited UX, "Get the Threads app to see more from ...". In any case, they're halfway there.
pmlnr 3y ago
> What I don't understand is why Threads is app-only. Seriously? All that extra data collection from your device, that's why.
- nicce 3y ago
  Also it is much easier to lock into the platform and prevent sharing content. e.g. images in the app. On browsers, videos and images must be usually presented in standard formats, and you can just download them with browser tools. It is also much easier to inspect the traffic and see all the (bad) things. On app level for analysis be possible, you often need to set your own TLS certificates or somehow obtain private key of your mobile phone to decrypt the traffic. You could also reverse-engineer the app, but it might be obfuscated (ref. Snapchat). Browsers are designed to handle untrusted content, even if the user gives some permissions. On applications, you are asked to trust the application (permissions), and then it does what it wants with given permissions. On OS there is sandboxing, but the scope is much larger than in browsers. If you are very locked in to the platform, you might be more willingly to give the permissions for app to work, which might include more than it actually needs.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
If your business is sucking people's attention, and harvesting people's private information so you can target them better, mobile is a much easier way to do it. Plus there's a generation of product managers who just dismiss the desktop or web as old/arcane/niche and uncool anyways. It's also not surprising coming from the Instagram backround -- which was a mobile only app for years (well, because it was based on stuff you did with your phone camera, so it made sense). But even Facebook these days is repeatedly broken on the web in ways it never used to be. Notifications go missing, or don't come in in the background, state goes stale, things never load, or require a full site reload to resolve... bugs in the web version that have gone unfixed for literally years. This is not an organization that prioritizes the web, at this point, despite having its origin there. I don't think WhatsApp has ever had anything beyond a barebones web experience. I was surprised by how many seemed to not even notice or remark on this being the case, tho. I knew mobile was the primary modality by which people interacted these days, but I guess it didn't really sink in for me to what degree: people don't even notice the absence of a desktop computer way of using the thing. Myself, well, I thought about trying out Threads -- I have Instagram and Facebook accounts anyways -- but I couldn't be bothered with anything that is mobile-only. On a typical day I only pick up my phone to do 2FA sign-ins. And yes, I know you can view people's posts/threads via web, but that's it.

jacquesm 3y ago

Because an app is not the web. And the web is anathema to a properly walled garden.

qwertox 3y ago
Sure, but I mean in relation to Twitter, which in that sense is not a walled garden.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Twitter is very much a walled garden and is in that sense rapidly becoming more so, especially because Elon Musk is dreaming of making the Twitter app into the 'everything' app that will be a platform for all your comms and commercial transactions. AOL next gen.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    It's also not a "fair" comparison because twitter was born before smartphone penetration and the "mobile first" thing. They launched on the web first, like Facebook, and probably would love to wall things off more and lock out the web, but can't now. (Though Musk clearly made an effort a couple weeks ago by requiring log in to view any tweets, he's had to partially roll that back, though not fully) When I went looking at any of the various new social network startups that have tried to get into the market all of them -- except the fediverse/open-source/hacker type projects -- were mobile only, even some after years of being on the market. Clearly highly motivated to keep a mobile-only moat around things.

johnbatch 3y ago

Just had to double check. There is a “copy link” and “get embed code” on every thread. Example: https://www.threads.net/t/Cuh5XzipVyS https://www.threads.net/t/Cuh5XzipVyS

red_trumpet 3y ago
Where do you see the "get embed code"? I found "copy link" under the three dots in the upper right corner, but no embed code. Is it because I'm from EU and so I can't access the share menu?
qwertox 3y ago
Interesting, thanks. But then it requires fbcdn.net to be whitelisted in the DNS server, which I won't do. But checking with a proxied browser also gives a limited UX, "Get the Threads app to see more from ...". In any case, they're halfway there.

pmlnr 3y ago

> What I don't understand is why Threads is app-only. Seriously? All that extra data collection from your device, that's why.

nicce 3y ago
Also it is much easier to lock into the platform and prevent sharing content. e.g. images in the app. On browsers, videos and images must be usually presented in standard formats, and you can just download them with browser tools. It is also much easier to inspect the traffic and see all the (bad) things. On app level for analysis be possible, you often need to set your own TLS certificates or somehow obtain private key of your mobile phone to decrypt the traffic. You could also reverse-engineer the app, but it might be obfuscated (ref. Snapchat). Browsers are designed to handle untrusted content, even if the user gives some permissions. On applications, you are asked to trust the application (permissions), and then it does what it wants with given permissions. On OS there is sandboxing, but the scope is much larger than in browsers. If you are very locked in to the platform, you might be more willingly to give the permissions for app to work, which might include more than it actually needs.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

If your business is sucking people's attention, and harvesting people's private information so you can target them better, mobile is a much easier way to do it. Plus there's a generation of product managers who just dismiss the desktop or web as old/arcane/niche and uncool anyways. It's also not surprising coming from the Instagram backround -- which was a mobile only app for years (well, because it was based on stuff you did with your phone camera, so it made sense). But even Facebook these days is repeatedly broken on the web in ways it never used to be. Notifications go missing, or don't come in in the background, state goes stale, things never load, or require a full site reload to resolve... bugs in the web version that have gone unfixed for literally years. This is not an organization that prioritizes the web, at this point, despite having its origin there. I don't think WhatsApp has ever had anything beyond a barebones web experience. I was surprised by how many seemed to not even notice or remark on this being the case, tho. I knew mobile was the primary modality by which people interacted these days, but I guess it didn't really sink in for me to what degree: people don't even notice the absence of a desktop computer way of using the thing. Myself, well, I thought about trying out Threads -- I have Instagram and Facebook accounts anyways -- but I couldn't be bothered with anything that is mobile-only. On a typical day I only pick up my phone to do 2FA sign-ins. And yes, I know you can view people's posts/threads via web, but that's it.