5 ms·

Why can’t a business be built solely without giving Apple a dime? The web is free — as in freedom and as in gratis. It has a developer tools system funded by hu

Why can’t a business be built solely without giving Apple a dime? The web is free — as in freedom and as in gratis. It has a developer tools system funded by hundreds of companies, developers and community members. There’s hardly any order of dipping, if any. Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”?

troupo 2y ago
> Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”? Because the web sucks at building apps? Because the web can barely render a few lines of text and several images without lag and jank? Because the web lacks useful and powerful primitives and controls to build anything but the most primitive UIs? Because...
immibis 2y ago
Because Apple limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices? Same reason it refused to allow Flash. It wants you to stay in the walled garden with the expensive fees.
- troupo 2y ago
  Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. Additionally, desktop browsers have been a thing since forever. Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. worldwide, and not by a large margin. I believe it's 60/40 last I checked. Among US and a few other first world countries, it's nearly 50/50, with a very small advantadge to Apple. Slashing your consumer base in the biggest markets isn't an attractive proposition. >Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about? well Apple made PWA's harder to do in the EU, so ask them... They're doing what they did to Flash long ago, with much less justification this time around.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > well Apple made PWA's harde So. Let me get this straight. Android is dominant in the world. In first world countries it's 50/50 (though it's 69% in the EU). There are also desktops where Chrome is dominant. And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs[1] that are the future as everyone claims, because somehow Apple prevents you from building them for those dominant platforms. [1] Don't mention Figma or VSCode before you also mention how much effort went into implementing them.
      - 0xRake 2y ago
        trolll
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Mastodon, Pinterest, Uber, Trivago, Starbucks, Dominos, Stitchfix, Adam & Eve or Hotels.com are usable online. You specifically complain because none of these apps are killer features to you. I don't know what to say; clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify. People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology. Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way to make them infeasible alternatives to a first-party service. It's not my fault that your purview of the technology is arbitrarily limited.
        troupo 2y ago
        > There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say 1. Funny how "on a regular basis" only comes after prodding these people multiple times, pointing out Android and desktop exists, and wading through numerous complaints how no, it's not true, and Apple prevents PWAs from existing. Even in this discussion instead of naming PWAs right off the bat you first pretended that Android isn't dominant, and completely ignored Chrome dominance 2. It's also funny how "the amazing great PWAs" are inevitably not that great, are they? Instead of being great and amazing they are just... "usable online". Each of those significantly much better as native apps. Without fail most of them would be much faster, fluid, less janky and resource-hungry if they were just static sites with links instead of ... whatever they are. Oh yes, they are usable. > clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify. "Technically qualify". That's a great turn of phrase you used there. So, we went from "boohoo limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices" to "usable online" and "technically qualify". I, for one, don't want to use apps that "technically qualify". I want actual fast fluid non-janky and non-resource hungry apps that are a joy to use even if they are the most mundane apps out there. That is precisely why I keep asking: given that Android dominates mobile space, and Chrome dominates desktop platforms, how come the best examples you can come up with barely "technically qualify"? > People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology. People refuse to accept PWA fanatics when they keep saying grand words with very little to back them app. All you can do is complain about Apple. > Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way You'd think that PWAs would be great and amazing on platforms that don't have any real or perceived limitations. And yet, all you can come up with is "usable online" and "technically qualify". But sure, do keep complaining how it's Apple who's preventing you from building great native-like experiences on the web.
rambambram 2y ago
The web is more than good enough. There's just a lot of people drinking the kool-aid and believing big tech's subtle and not so subtle messages about the web being shite. Of course the web is shite on devices from companies that compete with the web. They actively undermine it.
- troupo 2y ago
  In my experience, the only people drinking kool-aid are those claiming that the web is good enough, and failing to deliver web apps that can do anything beyond the absolutely primitive stuff. With very few notable exceptions which are notable precisely because they are so few.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > web is more than good enough For content delivery, yes. For deeply-interactive apps, not in my experience: every vendor that went web-only that wasn’t just serving up text, in the end, forced me to a competitor.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  the web isn't shit per se. But it's horrible in the one way it matters to business; it is very hard to monetize web content compared to apps. That's a small part of why flash games quickly gave way to mobile. But it's hard to deny there are quite a few technical shortcomings. Shortcomings only just now starting to dimish as WebASM/WebGPU gain traction.
- throwitaway1123 2y ago
  The web is absolutely more than good enough for the vast majority of apps. I was playing Quake Live in the browser on a thermally throttled dual core laptop 15 years ago, but the hive mind here at HN will have you believe that the generic social media apps that dominate the charts all need to be "close to the metal": https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone/top-free-apps/36 https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone/top-free-apps/36
  - troupo 2y ago
cafed00d 2y ago
Reading the comments is convincing enough to believe there is no viable business to be built on the mobile web. It's great technology, sure; but not a great business. Mobile web apps won't pay the bills for people who build them. It seems worth everyone's time to have those mobile web devs instead build native apps. Ergo, Apple's "dips" are justified costs of doing business.
- dzonga 2y ago
  on the web - people forget there's google tax. i.e ads or search engine placement. countless of public companies have it in their reports that mobile app users generate more revenue compared to web whether desktop or mobile. and i'm not talking about game companies.

troupo 2y ago

> Why doesn’t the web compete away Apple’s “dips”? Because the web sucks at building apps? Because the web can barely render a few lines of text and several images without lag and jank? Because the web lacks useful and powerful primitives and controls to build anything but the most primitive UIs? Because...

immibis 2y ago

Because Apple limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices? Same reason it refused to allow Flash. It wants you to stay in the walled garden with the expensive fees.

troupo 2y ago
Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. Additionally, desktop browsers have been a thing since forever. Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > Android has been the dominant mobile OS for over a decade. worldwide, and not by a large margin. I believe it's 60/40 last I checked. Among US and a few other first world countries, it's nearly 50/50, with a very small advantadge to Apple. Slashing your consumer base in the biggest markets isn't an attractive proposition. >Where is the multitude of amazing native-like web apps that we keep hearing about? well Apple made PWA's harder to do in the EU, so ask them... They're doing what they did to Flash long ago, with much less justification this time around.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > well Apple made PWA's harde So. Let me get this straight. Android is dominant in the world. In first world countries it's 50/50 (though it's 69% in the EU). There are also desktops where Chrome is dominant. And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs[1] that are the future as everyone claims, because somehow Apple prevents you from building them for those dominant platforms. [1] Don't mention Figma or VSCode before you also mention how much effort went into implementing them.
    - 0xRake 2y ago
      trolll
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Mastodon, Pinterest, Uber, Trivago, Starbucks, Dominos, Stitchfix, Adam & Eve or Hotels.com are usable online. You specifically complain because none of these apps are killer features to you. I don't know what to say; clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify. People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology. Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way to make them infeasible alternatives to a first-party service. It's not my fault that your purview of the technology is arbitrarily limited.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say 1. Funny how "on a regular basis" only comes after prodding these people multiple times, pointing out Android and desktop exists, and wading through numerous complaints how no, it's not true, and Apple prevents PWAs from existing. Even in this discussion instead of naming PWAs right off the bat you first pretended that Android isn't dominant, and completely ignored Chrome dominance 2. It's also funny how "the amazing great PWAs" are inevitably not that great, are they? Instead of being great and amazing they are just... "usable online". Each of those significantly much better as native apps. Without fail most of them would be much faster, fluid, less janky and resource-hungry if they were just static sites with links instead of ... whatever they are. Oh yes, they are usable. > clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify. "Technically qualify". That's a great turn of phrase you used there. So, we went from "boohoo limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices" to "usable online" and "technically qualify". I, for one, don't want to use apps that "technically qualify". I want actual fast fluid non-janky and non-resource hungry apps that are a joy to use even if they are the most mundane apps out there. That is precisely why I keep asking: given that Android dominates mobile space, and Chrome dominates desktop platforms, how come the best examples you can come up with barely "technically qualify"? > People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology. People refuse to accept PWA fanatics when they keep saying grand words with very little to back them app. All you can do is complain about Apple. > Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way You'd think that PWAs would be great and amazing on platforms that don't have any real or perceived limitations. And yet, all you can come up with is "usable online" and "technically qualify". But sure, do keep complaining how it's Apple who's preventing you from building great native-like experiences on the web.

rambambram 2y ago

The web is more than good enough. There's just a lot of people drinking the kool-aid and believing big tech's subtle and not so subtle messages about the web being shite. Of course the web is shite on devices from companies that compete with the web. They actively undermine it.

troupo 2y ago
In my experience, the only people drinking kool-aid are those claiming that the web is good enough, and failing to deliver web apps that can do anything beyond the absolutely primitive stuff. With very few notable exceptions which are notable precisely because they are so few.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> web is more than good enough For content delivery, yes. For deeply-interactive apps, not in my experience: every vendor that went web-only that wasn’t just serving up text, in the end, forced me to a competitor.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
the web isn't shit per se. But it's horrible in the one way it matters to business; it is very hard to monetize web content compared to apps. That's a small part of why flash games quickly gave way to mobile. But it's hard to deny there are quite a few technical shortcomings. Shortcomings only just now starting to dimish as WebASM/WebGPU gain traction.
throwitaway1123 2y ago
The web is absolutely more than good enough for the vast majority of apps. I was playing Quake Live in the browser on a thermally throttled dual core laptop 15 years ago, but the hive mind here at HN will have you believe that the generic social media apps that dominate the charts all need to be "close to the metal": https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone/top-free-apps/36 https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone/top-free-apps/36
- troupo 2y ago

cafed00d 2y ago

Reading the comments is convincing enough to believe there is no viable business to be built on the mobile web. It's great technology, sure; but not a great business. Mobile web apps won't pay the bills for people who build them. It seems worth everyone's time to have those mobile web devs instead build native apps. Ergo, Apple's "dips" are justified costs of doing business.

dzonga 2y ago
on the web - people forget there's google tax. i.e ads or search engine placement. countless of public companies have it in their reports that mobile app users generate more revenue compared to web whether desktop or mobile. and i'm not talking about game companies.