4 ms·

The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend

The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there, it's night and day compared to desktop. It's no wonder that developing countries, where desktops had less penetration and mobile dominates, have much less of an "open web" to speak of, and far more things are done in apps/siloes. If we accept the premise that the mobile web shows us one potential future trajectory for the web, it's looking grim. And if so, Google's approach of trying to make the "Web Platform" match native platform capabilities (notifications, for example) is far healthier for the web than Apple's approach of gating features exclusive to native apps (it almost sounds self-evident when I put it that way). Beyond all the arguments and talking point, look at mobile web vs app usage and you can see the end-result of Apple's vision for the web: it's dead.

bobajeff 1y ago
It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos on mobile is part of a general trend to restrict more and more what people can do with their stuff. See Microsoft requiring an online account to use Windows. UEFI. DVD/Blu-ray players not allowing you to skip ads. Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. Cars sending your driving data to insurance companies.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  > Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
  - bobajeff 1y ago
    What's it's "meant" to say and what it says according to the law are two distinctly different things. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May_2025_Policy_Updates https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May...
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      > Without limitation, you agree that you may not (a) publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services; (b) bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent any of the [functions or protections of the Nintendo Account Services]. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part. It's hard to feel sympathetic when literally everything above is illegal anyway, under the CFAA and DMCA. To me, this is a "we could brick your console if you do illegal stuff," which is nothing new (you can't steal an iPhone without Apple bricking it). This is also, presumably, why Nintendo believes they can get away with it - there's no way you can possibly sue without exposing yourself. Also, note that this specifically targets Nintendo Account Services. This isn't you casually modding or even cheating; this is you hacking your console, and then using that entry point (your console's unique authentication certificates) to try and get into Nintendo's infrastructure. Even the people hacking Switch 1 knew that if you probe the CDN in a way even slightly unusual, you get permanently banned instantly. I'm not saying I like it; I'm saying that it's irrelevant to any decent customer who isn't planning to be taking inventory of Nintendo's online endpoints.
      - bobajeff 1y ago
        Whatever their thinking the result is the same you don't have ownership over the thing you bought.
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
- concinds 1y ago
  Your examples have nothing to do with the web, but the author does criticize Google severely for hindering web apps early on to favor Android apps (before mostly changing tack with the rise of ChromeOS). When tech went mainstream in developing countries, it was on mobile, and the native app platform was more capable than the web platform therefore the true "web" didn't take off (even non-app text webpages). The fact remains that Google is the only one trying to fix that, and giving the web a chance to not die and be supplanted by native apps.
  - bobajeff 1y ago
    The web is being locked down too. See Google's proposals like the Web Environment Integrity API. Already, Google blocks sign-in's from 'embedded browsers' (webkit or electron-based browsers). The Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module already lock out all but large company's from making a compatible browsers.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      > Web Environment Integrity API Dead proposal, two years ago. > Blocks sign-ins from 'embedded browsers' I would too; browser automation tools are a spam farm's favorite tool. > Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module Previously it was just called Silverlight and Flash. The demand isn't going away; but EME+CDM is definitely more open than it used to be.
GeekyBear 1y ago
> The web is practically dead on mobile. How much of that is Google not allowing you to run uBlock origin on mobile Chrome? The web without access to block lists (not just ads, but also others like annoyances) is practically unusable, especially on mobile.
lapcat 1y ago
> The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there False. You appear to be referring to https://infrequently.org/2024/10/platforms-are-competitions/ https://infrequently.org/2024/10/platforms-are-competitions/ which itself refers to https://www.emarketer.com/content/the-majority-of-americans-mobile-time-spent-takes-place-in-apps https://www.emarketer.com/content/the-majority-of-americans-... According to the survey, people spend on average almost a half hour per day in mobile web browsers, and that percentage remained steady over the surveyed period. That's not "practically no time", and furthermore, if Apple Safari is supposedly falling behind, that hasn't caused a noticeable decrease in the time spent web browsing. It is true that the time spent using mobile apps (including games) has been increasing. Whether that's good, bad, or neutral is subject to debate. But it's not clear why this is inherently worse than spending time in a web browser. Note also that the survey does not distinguish between iOS and Android. Also, as the article notes, "our figures may undercount time in embedded mobile browsers, such as those within Facebook or Twitter."

bobajeff 1y ago

It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos on mobile is part of a general trend to restrict more and more what people can do with their stuff. See Microsoft requiring an online account to use Windows. UEFI. DVD/Blu-ray players not allowing you to skip ads. Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. Cars sending your driving data to insurance companies.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
> Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
- bobajeff 1y ago
  What's it's "meant" to say and what it says according to the law are two distinctly different things. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May_2025_Policy_Updates https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May...
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    > Without limitation, you agree that you may not (a) publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services; (b) bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent any of the [functions or protections of the Nintendo Account Services]. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part. It's hard to feel sympathetic when literally everything above is illegal anyway, under the CFAA and DMCA. To me, this is a "we could brick your console if you do illegal stuff," which is nothing new (you can't steal an iPhone without Apple bricking it). This is also, presumably, why Nintendo believes they can get away with it - there's no way you can possibly sue without exposing yourself. Also, note that this specifically targets Nintendo Account Services. This isn't you casually modding or even cheating; this is you hacking your console, and then using that entry point (your console's unique authentication certificates) to try and get into Nintendo's infrastructure. Even the people hacking Switch 1 knew that if you probe the CDN in a way even slightly unusual, you get permanently banned instantly. I'm not saying I like it; I'm saying that it's irrelevant to any decent customer who isn't planning to be taking inventory of Nintendo's online endpoints.
    - bobajeff 1y ago
      Whatever their thinking the result is the same you don't have ownership over the thing you bought.
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
concinds 1y ago
Your examples have nothing to do with the web, but the author does criticize Google severely for hindering web apps early on to favor Android apps (before mostly changing tack with the rise of ChromeOS). When tech went mainstream in developing countries, it was on mobile, and the native app platform was more capable than the web platform therefore the true "web" didn't take off (even non-app text webpages). The fact remains that Google is the only one trying to fix that, and giving the web a chance to not die and be supplanted by native apps.
- bobajeff 1y ago
  The web is being locked down too. See Google's proposals like the Web Environment Integrity API. Already, Google blocks sign-in's from 'embedded browsers' (webkit or electron-based browsers). The Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module already lock out all but large company's from making a compatible browsers.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    > Web Environment Integrity API Dead proposal, two years ago. > Blocks sign-ins from 'embedded browsers' I would too; browser automation tools are a spam farm's favorite tool. > Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module Previously it was just called Silverlight and Flash. The demand isn't going away; but EME+CDM is definitely more open than it used to be.

GeekyBear 1y ago

> The web is practically dead on mobile. How much of that is Google not allowing you to run uBlock origin on mobile Chrome? The web without access to block lists (not just ads, but also others like annoyances) is practically unusable, especially on mobile.

lapcat 1y ago

> The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there False. You appear to be referring to https://infrequently.org/2024/10/platforms-are-competitions/ https://infrequently.org/2024/10/platforms-are-competitions/ which itself refers to https://www.emarketer.com/content/the-majority-of-americans-mobile-time-spent-takes-place-in-apps https://www.emarketer.com/content/the-majority-of-americans-... According to the survey, people spend on average almost a half hour per day in mobile web browsers, and that percentage remained steady over the surveyed period. That's not "practically no time", and furthermore, if Apple Safari is supposedly falling behind, that hasn't caused a noticeable decrease in the time spent web browsing. It is true that the time spent using mobile apps (including games) has been increasing. Whether that's good, bad, or neutral is subject to debate. But it's not clear why this is inherently worse than spending time in a web browser. Note also that the survey does not distinguish between iOS and Android. Also, as the article notes, "our figures may undercount time in embedded mobile browsers, such as those within Facebook or Twitter."