5 ms·

In Google's defense, they weren't the ones that championed the "everything must be an app" movement. My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were

In Google's defense, they weren't the ones that championed the "everything must be an app" movement. My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) pushed cross-platform web apps, but Apple ran a successful marketing campaign to convince everyone that everything on mobile must be a native app for reasons[1]. So we end up with a walled garden of native apps that must be approved by and pay a tax to the company that makes the OS. The result is that instead of building one app that works on all platforms, software companies need to build three apps: Web, iOS, and Android. I'm sympathetic to why most software companies (including my own) choose to just build a web app wrapped in a native wrapper. If a company does decide to build a totally separate iOS app, I dunno, it seems reasonable not to build support for every single niche feature that the web app has. I'm not sure I get the outrage here, especially since Google has a long track record of preferring web apps to native. [1]The "reasons" primarily are that Apple refused to support PWAs, hamstrung mobile Safari, and refused to allow third-party browsers. So while it's true that native apps can offer a better experience than mobile web apps, that's mostly just because Apple artificially restricts web apps.

moritonal 1mo ago
Oh don't, I remember being at a Google PWA Conference where they showed a world where you walked up to a coffee machine which served you a website over some local Bluetooth beacons, you asked for a coffee and it made it. It was such a hopeful concept looking back.
- edent 1mo ago
  They even called it "Physical Web". It was a lovely concept - even if it did abuse Bluetooth beacons somewhat.
- chrisjj 1mo ago
  I can see why it didn't catch on. The phone user would prefer to use the on-machine UI needed for regular users and bigger.
- Neywiny 1mo ago
  I'm still off and on trying to do this. Would be so helpful for IoT things. Can't figure out with all the PAN stuff what technology to use in what way
p3rls 1mo ago
[dead]
top_rooster 1mo ago
In fairness though, I think its pretty clear that mobile is the future. Something like 40% of Gen Z only access things by mobile. (Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/search-behavior-being-redefined-thanks-generational-shifts https://www.emarketer.com/content/search-behavior-being-rede...) So in the future, when you have those three versions you need to build, its starting to make sense to have the mobile version be the full functionality version. Although, I guess it would be crazy to go to a link on your computer and be told it only works on mobile.
- adfignaioernio 1mo ago
  [dead]
- paularmstrong 1mo ago
  The article you linked is about social media as the proxy for information discovery as opposed to search. > …clear that mobile is the future… And also, "mobile" is tangential to "app" vs "website".
llm_nerd 1mo ago
[flagged]
- cmrdporcupine 1mo ago
  Yep. The pro-"web" faction's dominance inside Google died a long time ago. When I started working there (2012) L&S were already openly pushing "mobile first" and then later even "mobile only" because they saw it (mobile adoption) as existential threat to advertising revenue and worried that us engineers had a desktop bias that was going to set them back. I worked on several products where the PMs saw the web as a hindrance not a goal. e.g. I worked on Google WiFi and there was never an out-of-box experience or administration story for it for browser. Us SWEs asked for it, said we'd build it even, and the PMs and leadership level said no. Google makes a browser, but a large part of the company is openly hostile to the open web at this point.
thewebguyd 1mo ago
Even Apple, before caving in, didn't want apps. On the original iPhone there was no SDK, Jobs' "sweet solution" to expanding functionality was web apps pinned to the home screen. Everyone complained, loudly, and they caved in and launched the app store.
- chrisjj 1mo ago
  What complaint?
  - thewebguyd 1mo ago
    People complained there was no SDK or way to install software on the iPhone outside of web apps.
    - kridsdale1 1mo ago
      They did more than complain. They made their own hacker SDK. It was a pretty awesome time. For the first few years the black market software world on iOS could do a ton of fun things that official apps couldn’t at all.
  - flerchin 1mo ago
    Well I wanted a way to write native software for the iPhone at the time.
- spiralpolitik 1mo ago
  The complaints at the time were entirely valid. The state of web development for mobile was pretty dire. HTML 5 wasn't released until 22 January 2008. People wanted to build apps for iOS in XCode. Nothing else would have been acceptable. IMHO the web community dug their own grave here. WAP/WML and whatever it was the Japanese phones used was a better starting point than HTML etc as they'd already solved a lot the big problems around mobile developement. They were not perfect and support was terrible but they were much more focused on the problem of mobile app development than the "everything is the same nail" approach of HTML. Even to this day the UX experience of web apps in HTML/Javascript/CSS is subpar to native apps and I say that as someone who spends their day developing such web apps. You can only put so much lipstick on the pig.
Mistletoe 1mo ago
I remember the “There’s an app for that” commercials well. I remember screaming at my tv that we already had a name for that- a program. https://youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg&pp=0gcJCYsCo7VqN5tD&ra=m https://youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg&pp=0gcJCYsCo7VqN5tD&...
internet2000 1mo ago
> [1]The "reasons" primarily are that Apple refused to support PWAs, hamstrung mobile Safari, and refused to allow third-party browsers. So while it's true that native apps can offer a better experience than mobile web apps, that's mostly just because Apple artificially restricts web apps. This is disingenuous. Quoting Steve Jobs himself: > We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms. Originally about Adobe's Flash, but can apply with no editing (!) to Google Chrome :)
- Drew_ 1mo ago
  But all of those problems with 3rd party libraries also do exist in native iOS development?
  - zbentley 1mo ago
    Hence Jobs’ rationale for providing native SDKs for iOS development. It wasn’t about any third-party libraries per se, it was about wanting the native SDKs to be the principal way to deliver experiences on the platform. I’m not entirely sure it was borne out by history, but that was his reasoning at least.
ignoramous 1mo ago
> My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) Interestingly, Palm (webOS) & Microsoft (Sidekick / WebTV) folks ended up creating/shaping Android.
ProllyInfamous 1mo ago
Google Earth is a fantastic computer program (which is being retired June 2027; stupid IMHO); Alphabet, Inc., wants you to instead "use the in-browser version of earth.google.com for a better experience." When I attempt to load earth.google.com it is total dogshit, just a terrible all-around experience (with glitches and an additional layer of obfuscation between map and browsing: a 3rd-party web browser). My RTX5070Ti renders everything so beautifully within the Google Earth program – smooth and fully-3D everything. The only reasoning I can muster is that it's harder to embed advertisements/tracking within the program (compared to the website interface); but when I cannot use the application anymore, I will no longer use Google Earth (entirely) – which is unfortunate because it is a fantastic resource (I have a computer dedicated almost-entirely to Google Earth tasks; it is the only machine in my office that can contact Google servers).

moritonal 1mo ago

Oh don't, I remember being at a Google PWA Conference where they showed a world where you walked up to a coffee machine which served you a website over some local Bluetooth beacons, you asked for a coffee and it made it. It was such a hopeful concept looking back.

edent 1mo ago
They even called it "Physical Web". It was a lovely concept - even if it did abuse Bluetooth beacons somewhat.
chrisjj 1mo ago
I can see why it didn't catch on. The phone user would prefer to use the on-machine UI needed for regular users and bigger.
Neywiny 1mo ago
I'm still off and on trying to do this. Would be so helpful for IoT things. Can't figure out with all the PAN stuff what technology to use in what way

p3rls 1mo ago

[dead]

top_rooster 1mo ago

In fairness though, I think its pretty clear that mobile is the future. Something like 40% of Gen Z only access things by mobile. (Source: https://www.emarketer.com/content/search-behavior-being-redefined-thanks-generational-shifts https://www.emarketer.com/content/search-behavior-being-rede...) So in the future, when you have those three versions you need to build, its starting to make sense to have the mobile version be the full functionality version. Although, I guess it would be crazy to go to a link on your computer and be told it only works on mobile.

adfignaioernio 1mo ago
[dead]
paularmstrong 1mo ago
The article you linked is about social media as the proxy for information discovery as opposed to search. > …clear that mobile is the future… And also, "mobile" is tangential to "app" vs "website".

llm_nerd 1mo ago

[flagged]

cmrdporcupine 1mo ago
Yep. The pro-"web" faction's dominance inside Google died a long time ago. When I started working there (2012) L&S were already openly pushing "mobile first" and then later even "mobile only" because they saw it (mobile adoption) as existential threat to advertising revenue and worried that us engineers had a desktop bias that was going to set them back. I worked on several products where the PMs saw the web as a hindrance not a goal. e.g. I worked on Google WiFi and there was never an out-of-box experience or administration story for it for browser. Us SWEs asked for it, said we'd build it even, and the PMs and leadership level said no. Google makes a browser, but a large part of the company is openly hostile to the open web at this point.

thewebguyd 1mo ago

Even Apple, before caving in, didn't want apps. On the original iPhone there was no SDK, Jobs' "sweet solution" to expanding functionality was web apps pinned to the home screen. Everyone complained, loudly, and they caved in and launched the app store.

chrisjj 1mo ago
What complaint?
- thewebguyd 1mo ago
  People complained there was no SDK or way to install software on the iPhone outside of web apps.
  - kridsdale1 1mo ago
    They did more than complain. They made their own hacker SDK. It was a pretty awesome time. For the first few years the black market software world on iOS could do a ton of fun things that official apps couldn’t at all.
- flerchin 1mo ago
  Well I wanted a way to write native software for the iPhone at the time.
spiralpolitik 1mo ago
The complaints at the time were entirely valid. The state of web development for mobile was pretty dire. HTML 5 wasn't released until 22 January 2008. People wanted to build apps for iOS in XCode. Nothing else would have been acceptable. IMHO the web community dug their own grave here. WAP/WML and whatever it was the Japanese phones used was a better starting point than HTML etc as they'd already solved a lot the big problems around mobile developement. They were not perfect and support was terrible but they were much more focused on the problem of mobile app development than the "everything is the same nail" approach of HTML. Even to this day the UX experience of web apps in HTML/Javascript/CSS is subpar to native apps and I say that as someone who spends their day developing such web apps. You can only put so much lipstick on the pig.

Mistletoe 1mo ago

I remember the “There’s an app for that” commercials well. I remember screaming at my tv that we already had a name for that- a program. https://youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg&pp=0gcJCYsCo7VqN5tD&ra=m https://youtube.com/watch?v=szrsfeyLzyg&pp=0gcJCYsCo7VqN5tD&...

internet2000 1mo ago

> [1]The "reasons" primarily are that Apple refused to support PWAs, hamstrung mobile Safari, and refused to allow third-party browsers. So while it's true that native apps can offer a better experience than mobile web apps, that's mostly just because Apple artificially restricts web apps. This is disingenuous. Quoting Steve Jobs himself: > We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms. Originally about Adobe's Flash, but can apply with no editing (!) to Google Chrome :)

Drew_ 1mo ago
But all of those problems with 3rd party libraries also do exist in native iOS development?
- zbentley 1mo ago
  Hence Jobs’ rationale for providing native SDKs for iOS development. It wasn’t about any third-party libraries per se, it was about wanting the native SDKs to be the principal way to deliver experiences on the platform. I’m not entirely sure it was borne out by history, but that was his reasoning at least.

ignoramous 1mo ago

> My memory of the 2010s is that Google (and while they were relevant, Palm) Interestingly, Palm (webOS) & Microsoft (Sidekick / WebTV) folks ended up creating/shaping Android.

ProllyInfamous 1mo ago

Google Earth is a fantastic computer program (which is being retired June 2027; stupid IMHO); Alphabet, Inc., wants you to instead "use the in-browser version of earth.google.com for a better experience." When I attempt to load earth.google.com it is total dogshit, just a terrible all-around experience (with glitches and an additional layer of obfuscation between map and browsing: a 3rd-party web browser). My RTX5070Ti renders everything so beautifully within the Google Earth program – smooth and fully-3D everything. The only reasoning I can muster is that it's harder to embed advertisements/tracking within the program (compared to the website interface); but when I cannot use the application anymore, I will no longer use Google Earth (entirely) – which is unfortunate because it is a fantastic resource (I have a computer dedicated almost-entirely to Google Earth tasks; it is the only machine in my office that can contact Google servers).