7 ms·

>We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant req

>We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant requests for an app. This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store. The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features. They have been dragged down by the subtle artificial friction that makes the UX feel subpar. This reminds me of my own experience of mobile websites when they first emerged. I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". Then I learned about responsive web design and it clicked for me. I predict that a similar epiphany will occur among casuals once the active sabotage of web apps stops due to regulations reigning in the anti-competitive business practices of gatekeepers. I'm sure that some people will still prefer "native" apps for whatever reason. However, if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field, then a lay person wouldn't even be able to differentiate between them. This is even the case today where some developers simply wrap their web app in a WebView and ship it as a "native" app.

troupo 1y ago
> This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store. If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few). If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app. And yet here we are. > if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps.
- kelthuzad 1y ago
  >If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few). This statement alone is evidence that you didn't understand the crux of the issue. You are also confusing cause and effect. I clearly explained the root causes for that. The reason there are not more web apps is not that they aren't "good" - what does that even mean? what is the criterion for "good" here? If you say that it's because they lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights. Be specific, why are they not "good"? There wouldn't be coincidentally a mysterious opposing force that actively prevents developers from improving those aspects, right? >There are none (or very, very, very few). X (Twitter) - has PWA Pinterest - has PWA Spotify - has PWA Uber - Hybrid Starbucks - has PWA Again, you're confusing cause and effect. It's like actively sabotaging a runner and saying: "See? that runner sucks!!" - Yeah because that runner is being actively sabotaged. You're completely ignoring all the evidence and simply claiming that they are unpopular because they are not "good" when in reality they are unpopular because they have been sabotaged to prevent them from challenging the gatekeeper's taxation funnels. >If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app. That's not even a coherent argument. Gatekeepers can sabotage competitors in many subtle ways to make the user experience subpar, it's not a 1-dimensional game where only feature parity can be weaponized. It's clear that you are actively refusing to understand the points being made. There is also documented evidence that Apple consistently engaged in practices that made any competing platform a worse experience. Gatekeepers have a conflict of interest and they consistently act in a manner that makes that bias glaring. Gatekeepers are also not morons, they know that it doesn't take much to introduce artificial friction while also maintaining plausible deniability. e.g. see court documents where Apple's engineers admit that they strategically use "scare screens" and that their managers would "definitely like that". >They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps. That's factually incorrect. As previously stated, it's not just a 1-dimensional form of sabotage where only feature parity is being weaponized but any form of artificially introduced friction, while being able to maintain plausible deniability - any of that will get the job done of shutting down any threat to the gatekeeper's taxation funnel. Furthermore, as open-web-advocacy.org states: - #AppleBrowserBan Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-competitive, starves the Safari/WebKit team of funding and has stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile. (https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-even-under-the-dma https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...) -Deep System Integration Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference. - Web App Equality All artifical barriers placed by gatekeepers must be removed. Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases.
TheDong 1y ago
[flagged]
- signal11 1y ago
  > Apps have to update to use new APIs that are cleaner (under threat of being removed…) WhatsApp on iOS is still not using the private photo picker* that iOS 14 introduced, and they haven’t been booted off the App Store yet. *So that you don’t have to share your entire photo library with Meta if you want to share a photo via WhatsApp. It’s just one example, but I suspect ubiquitous apps like WhatsApp (super popular in many geographies) might see lighter-touch enforcement. The point is that App Store governance isn’t as straightforward as one would think. Also, websites can drop support for certain browsers, use feature detection and progressive enhancement. There’s no reason for a website to get jankier over time if web devs do their job right.
- barrell 1y ago
  so to be clear, you are suggest we move to a closed internet, where Apple (who just lost in court due to unfair monopoly practices), not only gate keeps everything, but we have to pay them for the privilege?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
threatofrain 1y ago
There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term. PWA's just never took off.
- kelthuzad 1y ago
  > There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term. Google is the primary champion of PWAs, they have a vested interest in its success. The reason I focused on Apple is because its actions are one of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat that is PWA. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense of its walled garden that makes maximum taxation possible. >PWA's just never took off. That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
  - threatofrain 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - kelthuzad 1y ago
      >I’m building a PWA right now in the drone automation space. I can feel the sparsity of the ecosystem. What are you talking about? The ecosystem of the web is VASTLY SUPERIOR to anything else. You're just desperately trying to score a point where the is none to score. You don't have to bend over backwards in defense of gatekeepers like Apple (unless you are a massive shareholder) >A lot of people following this discussion are all devs in the web space. I am a web dev myself. I actually started out as a software engineer by making iOS apps. >However, your prejudice for people has already sealed the future of your discussion, regardless of whether your prejudice is correct. You're projecting, since I've zero prejudice that's why I made arguments based on concrete evidence and consistently backed up my claims.
      - 1y ago
ThatMedicIsASpy 1y ago
[flagged]
gargan 1y ago
Isn't the Mac way a good thing though? For example everything on Windows is moving to web apps where I feel they can load just as many trackers onto you eg https://www.theverge.com/news/710509/whatsapp-windows-app-web-wrapper-changes https://www.theverge.com/news/710509/whatsapp-windows-app-we... Whereas on Mac, Meta are keeping their native app presumably because they can't be in the Mac app store with just a web wrapper But maybe I've just got the exact delusion youre talking about in that I view the app as having more functionality. Maybe they need to free web apps to be on a level playing field as you say
- akdev1l 1y ago
  Most apps on Mac are not on the App Store You download a DMG file or something, then you drag and drop some icon into your “applications” folder It is kind of dumb. I haven’t seen any graphical package manage interface to handle this.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    The App Store is the graphical package manager interface. Or in the case of apps that haven't published, the Finder/Applications folder itself. It makes a lot of sense, similar to the way GoboLinux stashed packages in its new world filesystem hierarchy. One folder, one package.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      You do not need a new filesystem hierarchy for it. I have a "one folder one package" kind of setup (among others), e.g. packages are at ~/.local/pkg and I have them symlinked from there to ~/.local. It works for many programs. I use "zpkg", but you could use "GNU stow", too.
  - bratwurst3000 1y ago
    new to mac and when i dis this the first time i was "wtf is this made for children" but I understand more. Its more a folder oriented system. kind of
joenot443 1y ago
> The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features But they're not real apps, they're webpages. They are two different things, both very useful, but both very different. It's a very good thing for a user to be aware that there's a real and important difference between a signed binary from the App Store which lives on their device and a blob of minified JS coming down from quite literally anywhere. And they're correct to feel that way! Apps, when made correctly, feel way better to use! It's a bit surprising to me you attribute this preference for ""native"" apps to "whatever reason". I've always felt the difference was extremely stark and obvious, I couldn't imagine getting them confused. It seems you're a little misinformed with how most native apps are built; it's just not true that any meaningful number of apps you interact with regularly with "simply wrap their web app in a WebView." In fact, if you try to ship an app which does solely this (webpage in a WebView), Apple will reject it. Have you built any mobile apps, kelthuzad? I encourage you to try Google Docs or Youtube from a mobile browser and observe whether you find differences between that and the native experience. I think you'll be surprised :)
Sophira 1y ago
> I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". It wasn't that long ago that when you used the mobile internet, you would be getting a "fake version" of the site that could render speedily, despite the limited speed of 2G networks. First it was all about WML[0], which would be processed by a proxy that would deliver the file in a binary format that would be smaller. And even when mobile phones that could access proper HTML content hit the market, it was often still accessed through the use of an accelerator proxy[1] which would optimize the page (stripping unnecessary parts) that you were trying to access so that it could be downloaded faster. These technologies are still in use in some places, as I understand it. But it's generally not necessary nowadays for locations with access to 3G or better. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accelerator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accelerator
- zem 1y ago
  heck, if I use the mobile version of facebook I still get a fake site that won't open direct messages, pushing me to install the messenger app instead. with the desktop version the messages open without any issues.
prmph 1y ago
Exactly, web apps are superior in most ways to mobile apps for the user experience, but only if vendors support the web and stop actively trying to make it like apps are the better option. The preference for apps is a learned behavior, not something fundamental. The vast majority of people with real understanding would prefer the web
- squarefoot 1y ago
  I couldn't agree more. If vendors decided to give the web development the resources it deserves, the experience would turn out vastly superior for the users: no apps to download (browser is usually bundled), well standardized consistent interface where you know what a control does and how does it look like, more control on security and safety, and a lot less resources consumption. Unfortunately heavy advertising, catchy effects, colorful interfaces, and not caring for the web side, convinced most users that the apps approach is the best one, while it's actually the other way around. Apps also give vendors a tool to more easily infiltrate users devices and grab much of their personal data so I guess the motivation to change that is less than nil.
- thephyber 1y ago
  This seems like an extremely biased opinion. PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session. There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps). A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor.
  - kelthuzad 1y ago
    >PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session. This is a very strange argument to make, the exact same applies to "native" apps. Every app "is only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be". There are countless of "native" apps on iOS like "wallpaper" apps that drain the battery, consume absurd bandwidth and have outright scammy business models which App Store "review" just lets pass (because Apple gets a cut of the scam!). >There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps). Auth? https://whatpwacando.today/authentication https://whatpwacando.today/authentication Payments? https://whatpwacando.today/payment https://whatpwacando.today/payment Notifications? https://whatpwacando.today/notifications https://whatpwacando.today/notifications Parental Controls? Use Web Content Restrictions. Power efficiency? If JIT (Just-In-Time) compilation were universally allowed for all web browsers and PWAs on iOS, it would be a complete game-changer, dramatically closing the performance and power efficiency gap with native apps. (see above why Apple actively sabotages PWAs) Security and Privacy? PWAs benefit from the OS's sandbox and its own sandbox >A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor. You can't even compare the App Store review to someone actively going on e.g. Pinterest.com and clicking on install PWA. The user has already reviewed and decided that it's an app worth installing. Finally, the App Store "review process" is a bad joke, not only because it is slow, inefficient and often arbitrary, but because it fails to even filter out the most obvious of scams: "Apple claims its App Store is carefully curated so that only the best apps get through. The truth is, the App Store is littered with scams" -https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... "The widely used Apple App Store has become a minefield of scam apps. While several scam apps have been removed by Apple, it seems they’ve only acted when directly called out on social media. Despite the removal of some scam apps, Apple has not yet acted to ban the guilty app developers from the app store." https://mccunewright.com/scam-apps-sold-on-the-apple-app-store-without-oversight/ https://mccunewright.com/scam-apps-sold-on-the-apple-app-sto...

troupo 1y ago

> This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store. If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few). If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app. And yet here we are. > if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps.

kelthuzad 1y ago
>If web apps were any good, we'd see a plethora of them on Android. There are none (or very, very, very few). This statement alone is evidence that you didn't understand the crux of the issue. You are also confusing cause and effect. I clearly explained the root causes for that. The reason there are not more web apps is not that they aren't "good" - what does that even mean? what is the criterion for "good" here? If you say that it's because they lack certain features, then you confirmed my point that it's due to active sabotage and denial of equal rights. Be specific, why are they not "good"? There wouldn't be coincidentally a mysterious opposing force that actively prevents developers from improving those aspects, right? >There are none (or very, very, very few). X (Twitter) - has PWA Pinterest - has PWA Spotify - has PWA Uber - Hybrid Starbucks - has PWA Again, you're confusing cause and effect. It's like actively sabotaging a runner and saying: "See? that runner sucks!!" - Yeah because that runner is being actively sabotaged. You're completely ignoring all the evidence and simply claiming that they are unpopular because they are not "good" when in reality they are unpopular because they have been sabotaged to prevent them from challenging the gatekeeper's taxation funnels. >If web apps were any good, nothing Apple "gatekeeps" would prevent you from building an amazing web app for iOS. The things Apple "gatekeeps" (such as mobile push) would not prevent you from making a smooth fast web app. That's not even a coherent argument. Gatekeepers can sabotage competitors in many subtle ways to make the user experience subpar, it's not a 1-dimensional game where only feature parity can be weaponized. It's clear that you are actively refusing to understand the points being made. There is also documented evidence that Apple consistently engaged in practices that made any competing platform a worse experience. Gatekeepers have a conflict of interest and they consistently act in a manner that makes that bias glaring. Gatekeepers are also not morons, they know that it doesn't take much to introduce artificial friction while also maintaining plausible deniability. e.g. see court documents where Apple's engineers admit that they strategically use "scare screens" and that their managers would "definitely like that". >They already are competing on a level playing field. It's not "lack of NFC" or "lack of Bluetooth" or "lack of <another moving goalpost>" that prevent you from having good web apps. That's factually incorrect. As previously stated, it's not just a 1-dimensional form of sabotage where only feature parity is being weaponized but any form of artificially introduced friction, while being able to maintain plausible deniability - any of that will get the job done of shutting down any threat to the gatekeeper's taxation funnel. Furthermore, as open-web-advocacy.org states: - #AppleBrowserBan Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-competitive, starves the Safari/WebKit team of funding and has stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile. (https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban-persists-even-under-the-dma https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-browser-engine-ban...) -Deep System Integration Web Apps need to become just Apps. Apps built with the free and open web need equal treatment and integration. Closed and heavily taxed proprietary ecosystems should not receive any preference. - Web App Equality All artifical barriers placed by gatekeepers must be removed. Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases.

TheDong 1y ago

[flagged]

signal11 1y ago
> Apps have to update to use new APIs that are cleaner (under threat of being removed…) WhatsApp on iOS is still not using the private photo picker* that iOS 14 introduced, and they haven’t been booted off the App Store yet. *So that you don’t have to share your entire photo library with Meta if you want to share a photo via WhatsApp. It’s just one example, but I suspect ubiquitous apps like WhatsApp (super popular in many geographies) might see lighter-touch enforcement. The point is that App Store governance isn’t as straightforward as one would think. Also, websites can drop support for certain browsers, use feature detection and progressive enhancement. There’s no reason for a website to get jankier over time if web devs do their job right.
barrell 1y ago
so to be clear, you are suggest we move to a closed internet, where Apple (who just lost in court due to unfair monopoly practices), not only gate keeps everything, but we have to pay them for the privilege?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

threatofrain 1y ago

There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term. PWA's just never took off.

kelthuzad 1y ago
> There isn't just Apple, there's also Google which is a big promoter of PWA's, and in fact they popularized the term. Google is the primary champion of PWAs, they have a vested interest in its success. The reason I focused on Apple is because its actions are one of a profit-maximizing gatekeeper actively defending its most lucrative business against an existential threat that is PWA. Every bug, every delayed feature, and every artificial limitation imposed on PWAs on iOS is a calculated strategic move in this defense of its walled garden that makes maximum taxation possible. >PWA's just never took off. That's just the lazy manufactured and false narrative that I've already thoroughly debunked. I'm not going to repeat it, since you would just ignore it again.
- threatofrain 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - kelthuzad 1y ago
    >I’m building a PWA right now in the drone automation space. I can feel the sparsity of the ecosystem. What are you talking about? The ecosystem of the web is VASTLY SUPERIOR to anything else. You're just desperately trying to score a point where the is none to score. You don't have to bend over backwards in defense of gatekeepers like Apple (unless you are a massive shareholder) >A lot of people following this discussion are all devs in the web space. I am a web dev myself. I actually started out as a software engineer by making iOS apps. >However, your prejudice for people has already sealed the future of your discussion, regardless of whether your prejudice is correct. You're projecting, since I've zero prejudice that's why I made arguments based on concrete evidence and consistently backed up my claims.
    - 1y ago

ThatMedicIsASpy 1y ago

[flagged]

gargan 1y ago

Isn't the Mac way a good thing though? For example everything on Windows is moving to web apps where I feel they can load just as many trackers onto you eg https://www.theverge.com/news/710509/whatsapp-windows-app-web-wrapper-changes https://www.theverge.com/news/710509/whatsapp-windows-app-we... Whereas on Mac, Meta are keeping their native app presumably because they can't be in the Mac app store with just a web wrapper But maybe I've just got the exact delusion youre talking about in that I view the app as having more functionality. Maybe they need to free web apps to be on a level playing field as you say

akdev1l 1y ago
Most apps on Mac are not on the App Store You download a DMG file or something, then you drag and drop some icon into your “applications” folder It is kind of dumb. I haven’t seen any graphical package manage interface to handle this.
- jdiff 1y ago
  The App Store is the graphical package manager interface. Or in the case of apps that haven't published, the Finder/Applications folder itself. It makes a lot of sense, similar to the way GoboLinux stashed packages in its new world filesystem hierarchy. One folder, one package.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    You do not need a new filesystem hierarchy for it. I have a "one folder one package" kind of setup (among others), e.g. packages are at ~/.local/pkg and I have them symlinked from there to ~/.local. It works for many programs. I use "zpkg", but you could use "GNU stow", too.
- bratwurst3000 1y ago
  new to mac and when i dis this the first time i was "wtf is this made for children" but I understand more. Its more a folder oriented system. kind of

joenot443 1y ago

> The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features But they're not real apps, they're webpages. They are two different things, both very useful, but both very different. It's a very good thing for a user to be aware that there's a real and important difference between a signed binary from the App Store which lives on their device and a blob of minified JS coming down from quite literally anywhere. And they're correct to feel that way! Apps, when made correctly, feel way better to use! It's a bit surprising to me you attribute this preference for ""native"" apps to "whatever reason". I've always felt the difference was extremely stark and obvious, I couldn't imagine getting them confused. It seems you're a little misinformed with how most native apps are built; it's just not true that any meaningful number of apps you interact with regularly with "simply wrap their web app in a WebView." In fact, if you try to ship an app which does solely this (webpage in a WebView), Apple will reject it. Have you built any mobile apps, kelthuzad? I encourage you to try Google Docs or Youtube from a mobile browser and observe whether you find differences between that and the native experience. I think you'll be surprised :)

Sophira 1y ago

> I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". It wasn't that long ago that when you used the mobile internet, you would be getting a "fake version" of the site that could render speedily, despite the limited speed of 2G networks. First it was all about WML[0], which would be processed by a proxy that would deliver the file in a binary format that would be smaller. And even when mobile phones that could access proper HTML content hit the market, it was often still accessed through the use of an accelerator proxy[1] which would optimize the page (stripping unnecessary parts) that you were trying to access so that it could be downloaded faster. These technologies are still in use in some places, as I understand it. But it's generally not necessary nowadays for locations with access to 3G or better. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Markup_Language [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accelerator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accelerator

zem 1y ago
heck, if I use the mobile version of facebook I still get a fake site that won't open direct messages, pushing me to install the messenger app instead. with the desktop version the messages open without any issues.

prmph 1y ago

Exactly, web apps are superior in most ways to mobile apps for the user experience, but only if vendors support the web and stop actively trying to make it like apps are the better option. The preference for apps is a learned behavior, not something fundamental. The vast majority of people with real understanding would prefer the web

squarefoot 1y ago
I couldn't agree more. If vendors decided to give the web development the resources it deserves, the experience would turn out vastly superior for the users: no apps to download (browser is usually bundled), well standardized consistent interface where you know what a control does and how does it look like, more control on security and safety, and a lot less resources consumption. Unfortunately heavy advertising, catchy effects, colorful interfaces, and not caring for the web side, convinced most users that the apps approach is the best one, while it's actually the other way around. Apps also give vendors a tool to more easily infiltrate users devices and grab much of their personal data so I guess the motivation to change that is less than nil.
thephyber 1y ago
This seems like an extremely biased opinion. PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session. There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps). A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor.
- kelthuzad 1y ago
  >PWAs are only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be. The average local TV news affiliate website spends 5MB-20MB of bandwidth within a minute of downloading 1 page. My last iOS app was only 5MB shipped and only consumes a few KB of bandwidth per session. This is a very strange argument to make, the exact same applies to "native" apps. Every app "is only as good of a user experience as the developer programs it to be". There are countless of "native" apps on iOS like "wallpaper" apps that drain the battery, consume absurd bandwidth and have outright scammy business models which App Store "review" just lets pass (because Apple gets a cut of the scam!). >There are massive convenience features that native apps support which aren’t available to browser APIs. Auth, payments, notifications, parental controls, power efficiency, and perhaps security and privacy (depending on how prevalent analytics/ tracking/ advertising libraries are on native apps). Auth? https://whatpwacando.today/authentication https://whatpwacando.today/authentication Payments? https://whatpwacando.today/payment https://whatpwacando.today/payment Notifications? https://whatpwacando.today/notifications https://whatpwacando.today/notifications Parental Controls? Use Web Content Restrictions. Power efficiency? If JIT (Just-In-Time) compilation were universally allowed for all web browsers and PWAs on iOS, it would be a complete game-changer, dramatically closing the performance and power efficiency gap with native apps. (see above why Apple actively sabotages PWAs) Security and Privacy? PWAs benefit from the OS's sandbox and its own sandbox >A well crafted PWA can compete on most features with a well crafted app, but ultimately the App Store review process means native apps have a decently high floor, whereas PWAs have zero floor. You can't even compare the App Store review to someone actively going on e.g. Pinterest.com and clicking on install PWA. The user has already reviewed and decided that it's an app worth installing. Finally, the App Store "review process" is a bad joke, not only because it is slow, inefficient and often arbitrary, but because it fails to even filter out the most obvious of scams: "Apple claims its App Store is carefully curated so that only the best apps get through. The truth is, the App Store is littered with scams" -https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... "The widely used Apple App Store has become a minefield of scam apps. While several scam apps have been removed by Apple, it seems they’ve only acted when directly called out on social media. Despite the removal of some scam apps, Apple has not yet acted to ban the guilty app developers from the app store." https://mccunewright.com/scam-apps-sold-on-the-apple-app-store-without-oversight/ https://mccunewright.com/scam-apps-sold-on-the-apple-app-sto...