2 ms·
webapps are inefficient, clunky, slow substitutes to actual native apps. I think decades of marketing and billions spent by Google trying to convince people tha
by herval 3mo ago
webapps are inefficient, clunky, slow substitutes to actual native apps. I think decades of marketing and billions spent by Google trying to convince people that webapps are better is what makes many tech people think they are. Literally.
People "want" webapps to be what users "wanted" bc it pays their salary...
- high_priest 3mo agoThey both have their uses. At the extreme, try to imagine Pubg as a web app. There are good modern games that work purely in a browser. But still, there are "applications" that function better as full fledge clients seeping small amounts of data and there are "applications" that function just aswell as dynamically loaded full server-side solutions.
- herval 3mo agoI know, I agree both have their uses :-) I was just jesting about the kind of extreme OP went for.
- jonahx 3mo agoThat's clever rhetoric, but for most use cases it's just not true, and that's the point of the original article. There are legitimate use cases for native apps, but many of them could be converted to an instantly loading, 50-100KB web page without losing any functionality. As opposed to a 50-300MB native app, which you need a fast connection to install, and starts up more slowly than the web page every time you use it.
- herval 3mo agoYou’re doing native apps wrong if they’re 300mb. And also no web app in 2026 is just 50kb!