4 ms·

I totally agree with the author's points, however, I can't understand why people run "apps" for things like WhatsApp (and Slack) when they run just fine in a br

I totally agree with the author's points, however, I can't understand why people run "apps" for things like WhatsApp (and Slack) when they run just fine in a browser tab.

asdff 3y ago
Because with apps, I can download something built proper from the community like Ripcord instead, that uses less than 100mb of my memory.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
People like to click a dock icon or cmd-tab to an app, instead of having to click a dock icon and then a particular window and then a particular tab, or cmd-tabbing and then clicking to a particular window and then a particular tab.
- reportgunner 3y ago
  You can have more than one browser window though.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    That’s what I said.
- drewg123 3y ago
  I guess I'm just biased because I like to run an OS on my desktop (freebsd) that doesn't support Electron. I've carried that over to my macbook... I've just gotten into the habit of "gmail is leftmost, slack is next, etc", and never have a problem finding slack..
  - paxys 3y ago
    So you're using your browser tabs as an app manager. Most people prefer to use the actual OS app manager.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  It had all sorts of limitations & I get why it didn't last & it was overloading even for me, but... Damn I miss those glorious months or years when Chrome tabs were just app instances. It's insane to me that the browser & OS both have their own totally parallel/separate ways of managing multiple windows. That the two don't work together at all. The os has seemingly made such faint progress in helping complex apps manage multidocument setups.
aurareturn 3y ago
>I totally agree with the author's points, however, I can't understand why people run "apps" for things like WhatsApp (and Slack) when they run just fine in a browser tab. On macOS, you get native notifications, a bright red dot on the app icon for notifications, and a separate window from your browser. Lastly, the app might optimize for native macOS APIs strategically.
- drewg123 3y ago
  None of those are worth a few gigabytes of memory and disk space to me.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    It is to some people - like me. Electron gives us that option at a low cost to the developers. You can use the web version. I will use the desktop version. :)
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Perhaps at a higher cost to end users.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        A lower cost actually to end users typically.
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Cost can be quantified on many levels, including performance and quality.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        Hence, I said "typically".
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I love the idea of PWAs as an option for people, but I would 100% rather use a web page than an app. I have kick ass extensions filtering ads, giving me adjustable/customizable dark mode, I have a great form auto-saver, I have audio scrobblers, I have pinboard and are.na extensions. I have a url bar! I have tabs! I have back & forward buttons where I expect. I am afforded so much by the browser chrome. I don't want my user experience to be at the behest of some company building an app; I want the freedom and power to go further. And it feels like PWAs are a step back, to a form of computing that doesn't respect user agency. And alas, a number of permissions are being created that only work for PWAs! This is the biggest threat I see to the web I want: PWAs forcibly removing me from the situated environment I regularly use/enjoy, the browser.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Yes, I feel like the idea of a website/web-app you can install made sense at one point, but the reality is that it's not really much of an advantage on a browser, and if you're still running a browser too, you may as well just use it as a part of your existing browser. Firefox pulling the plug on their PWA efforts was pretty frustrating.

I totally agree with the author's points, however, I can't understand why people run "apps" for things like WhatsApp (and Slack) when they run just fine in a browser tab.

asdff 3y ago

Because with apps, I can download something built proper from the community like Ripcord instead, that uses less than 100mb of my memory.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

People like to click a dock icon or cmd-tab to an app, instead of having to click a dock icon and then a particular window and then a particular tab, or cmd-tabbing and then clicking to a particular window and then a particular tab.

reportgunner 3y ago
You can have more than one browser window though.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  That’s what I said.
drewg123 3y ago
I guess I'm just biased because I like to run an OS on my desktop (freebsd) that doesn't support Electron. I've carried that over to my macbook... I've just gotten into the habit of "gmail is leftmost, slack is next, etc", and never have a problem finding slack..
- paxys 3y ago
  So you're using your browser tabs as an app manager. Most people prefer to use the actual OS app manager.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
It had all sorts of limitations & I get why it didn't last & it was overloading even for me, but... Damn I miss those glorious months or years when Chrome tabs were just app instances. It's insane to me that the browser & OS both have their own totally parallel/separate ways of managing multiple windows. That the two don't work together at all. The os has seemingly made such faint progress in helping complex apps manage multidocument setups.

aurareturn 3y ago

>I totally agree with the author's points, however, I can't understand why people run "apps" for things like WhatsApp (and Slack) when they run just fine in a browser tab. On macOS, you get native notifications, a bright red dot on the app icon for notifications, and a separate window from your browser. Lastly, the app might optimize for native macOS APIs strategically.

drewg123 3y ago
None of those are worth a few gigabytes of memory and disk space to me.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  It is to some people - like me. Electron gives us that option at a low cost to the developers. You can use the web version. I will use the desktop version. :)
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    Perhaps at a higher cost to end users.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      A lower cost actually to end users typically.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Cost can be quantified on many levels, including performance and quality.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        Hence, I said "typically".

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

I love the idea of PWAs as an option for people, but I would 100% rather use a web page than an app. I have kick ass extensions filtering ads, giving me adjustable/customizable dark mode, I have a great form auto-saver, I have audio scrobblers, I have pinboard and are.na extensions. I have a url bar! I have tabs! I have back & forward buttons where I expect. I am afforded so much by the browser chrome. I don't want my user experience to be at the behest of some company building an app; I want the freedom and power to go further. And it feels like PWAs are a step back, to a form of computing that doesn't respect user agency. And alas, a number of permissions are being created that only work for PWAs! This is the biggest threat I see to the web I want: PWAs forcibly removing me from the situated environment I regularly use/enjoy, the browser.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Yes, I feel like the idea of a website/web-app you can install made sense at one point, but the reality is that it's not really much of an advantage on a browser, and if you're still running a browser too, you may as well just use it as a part of your existing browser. Firefox pulling the plug on their PWA efforts was pretty frustrating.