11 comments

  • billyp-rva19 minutes ago
    &gt; I can’t understand how we got to this place with “app culture”!<p>The short version: ad blockers work on browsers but not apps[0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pluralistic.net&#x2F;2024&#x2F;01&#x2F;30&#x2F;go-nuts-meine-kerle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pluralistic.net&#x2F;2024&#x2F;01&#x2F;30&#x2F;go-nuts-meine-kerle</a>
    • CuriouslyC15 minutes ago
      I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s it. Apps took off because people felt comfortable yoloing stuff from the Apple app store, and for a short while before saturation, the app store reach was making small developers rich.
      • reddalo11 minutes ago
        Apps took off because Apple did everything they could to make PWAs work badly, with no reliable notifications, no access to some data, etc.<p>Apple did that because they want their sweet 30% from in-app purchases, which they couldn&#x27;t enforce in PWAs.
        • CuriouslyC7 minutes ago
          To be fair, apps took off before nice PWAs that masquerade as apps were a thing. The app store was already thriving to the point of oversaturation when the first versions of React were released.
          • jorisw5 minutes ago
            PWAs (progressive web apps) surely existed before React though
            • CuriouslyC1 minute ago
              IIRC, the cutting edge of PWAs when the app store was taking off was Backbone.js, which I don&#x27;t recall being pleasant enough to work with to want to make anything large in.
      • jorisw6 minutes ago
        The <i>App Store</i> took off because of the distribution channel offers for developers (including being able to charge for the work) and the place of discovery it offers to users.
    • datakan13 minutes ago
      Apple has actually started allowing this. You can find the functionality in an adblocker called Wipr now and it works really well.
  • Doctor_Fegg18 minutes ago
    &gt; There only seem to be two things that this “app” does, that a webpage might not have, and they’re both anti-features:<p>&gt; It reports tracking data associated with your Google Account back to the developers.<p>Fortunately webpages never do any tracking whatsoever, let alone “Gobshite LLC and its 1131 partners need your permission for (contd. p94)”
    • reddalo7 minutes ago
      Luckily tools such as uBlock Origin let you block all those nasty scripts, _including_ the cookie banner themselves.
  • datakan35 minutes ago
    We were supposed to be in the age of PWAs. That was the initial plan for iOS before the app store and 30% cuts on subscription apps.<p>Most web apps suck too though so I guess pick your poison. My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
    • brabel31 minutes ago
      &gt; My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.<p>I believe the same about the Youtube App, I just can&#x27;t see why else it exists and I hate the video links try to open in the app if you&#x27;re not careful!
      • smallpipe27 minutes ago
        Casting from the web doesn’t work (on iOS at least) but that’s all I can think of.
        • craftkiller14 minutes ago
          Chromecast from desktop chromium works, so there&#x27;s no reason they couldn&#x27;t make the universal turing machine in my pocket do the same.
          • reddalo10 minutes ago
            Desktop Chromium is Chrome. iOS Chrome is just Safari with a different interface.<p>Apple doesn&#x27;t let other browsers use their own engine on iOS (unless you are located in the EU).
            • craftkiller5 minutes ago
              &gt; iOS Chrome is just Safari with a different interface<p>uhh wow. How did Microsoft face antitrust lawsuits for merely bundling IE when Apple is literally forcing their browser?
        • echoangle24 minutes ago
          AirPlay should work for every native video element, or do you mean something like chromecast?
          • jorisw21 minutes ago
            YouTube obfuscates the native video by removing the controls.<p>Vinegar is a Safari extension that fixes that on iOS and macOS. May exist for other browsers as well.
      • LoganDark16 minutes ago
        Apps are also more difficult to intercept and modify on most devices. Companies like them because it means you can&#x27;t use ad blockers or other privacy tools. It&#x27;s also why they flip out so outrageously when Apple adds privacy tools at the operating system level, because tracking and abuse are most of the reason why apps are useful to them in the first place.
    • mr_mitm12 minutes ago
      I&#x27;m currently attempting to write a calendar app for personal use, and I wanted to go the route of a self-host PWA. Notifications are a good point. How can I create notifications as a reminder before an event? Alerts are part of the icalendar standard (&quot;VALARM&quot;), so these are clearly notifications that are wanted by the user. Is that even possible for a PWA?
      • whstl3 minutes ago
        You can send notifications with PWAs with Web Push API + Service Worker, same as a regular page.<p>But, AFAIK, you need the server for push, though. It used to be possible to program entirely from the client with this proposed feature but AFAIK it&#x27;s abandoned: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;GoogleChrome&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;&#x2F;blob&#x2F;main&#x2F;site&#x2F;en&#x2F;docs&#x2F;web-platform&#x2F;notification-triggers&#x2F;index.md" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;GoogleChrome&#x2F;developer.chrome.com&#x2F;&#x2F;blob&#x2F;m...</a>
    • forlorn25 minutes ago
      They want apps so they could fingerprint your device, spy on you and get a lot more information than a web app.
      • jorisw23 minutes ago
        Sure. They. They want. You know who they are, and what they want.
        • close0417 minutes ago
          No need to play games and intentionally be obtuse all across the thread. &quot;They&quot; are the developers. A website has far less access to a device than an app and ads are easier to block. So <i>they</i> wrap anything into an app to gain that access and make ad money.
          • jorisw14 minutes ago
            What access?<p>Like the OS native APIs that offer the very utility for these apps to even exist?<p>Integration with OS features is what made the app ecosystem, because of utility. Project whatever conspiracy on that you want.
            • close044 minutes ago
              &gt; Project whatever conspiracy on that you want<p>You think a developer making money from their app is a conspiracy? Or that apps track you and developers monetize that data is one?<p>I don&#x27;t think you&#x27;re being <i>intentionally</i> obtuse anymore.
    • dec0dedab0de26 minutes ago
      sure, but that original idea was 20 years ago.
    • jorisw22 minutes ago
      &gt; they want<p>Who are &#x27;they&#x27; and how do you know what they want
      • pluralmonad19 minutes ago
        The people deciding between delivering their payload via app or web page. Engagement hacking is not something we have to guess that ad companies want.
        • jorisw18 minutes ago
          Ad companies now. Just one sentence earlier you said it&#x27;s people &#x27;delivering their payload&#x27;.
          • pluralmonad9 minutes ago
            Yes, ad (supported) companies are a large subset of the former. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make.
      • datakan19 minutes ago
        The developer of the apps obviously.
      • snapcaster19 minutes ago
        Why this gaslighting? obviously the massive companies with vested interest in monetizing your attention and data
        • jorisw16 minutes ago
          Nice and vague. Hard to dispute.<p>Simple fact is that people <i>love</i> to project evil incentives onto entities they don&#x27;t even bother defining.<p>Not every native app developer is a &#x27;massive company&#x27; with a &#x27;vested interest&#x27; (what does that even mean) in monetizing your attention and data.
  • pdnagilum13 minutes ago
    Wait, the users password is part of the URL? What happens if the password contains a forward slash or a question mark? Wouldn&#x27;t that break the whole endpoint?
    • Dan-Q1 minute ago
      Original author here. Upon inspection, these passwords are clearly not chosen by the user and, as far as I can tell, consist only of numbers and uppercase letters.
    • lstodd8 minutes ago
      RFC 1738 Uniform Resource Locators (URL) December 1994 section 2.2
  • mohammedmsgm14 minutes ago
    I think yeah, most apps can be webpages, but the biggest used apps can also be webpages, (insta, facebook, x) and so on , I think the only real indicator is how much people are using the apps, not if it&#x27;s simpler just to do a webpage
  • wsdn12 minutes ago
    If a 120MB app is required just to display an itinerary PDF, that&#x27;s an architecture problem, not a UX problem.
  • Hard_Space42 minutes ago
    I understand the anger. But I wish I were better able to resist fixing the world with code in this way, as I really am supposed to be working.
  • catapart23 minutes ago
    Fantastic work! It&#x27;s always nice to see the method, in case anything is out there making this stuff easier. But the result is the real prize. There&#x27;s way too much nonsense out there that is an app when it should be a webpage. I&#x27;m so tired of all of these apps.<p>One criticism, though: I wish you would have made a simple form-based alternative to the app&#x27;s population mechanism, rather than just make the one-off consumer for yourself(&#x2F;those you shared with). Definitely way more work and not something you should have to do. But that would have been a cherry on top. Not only prevent needing the app for viewing, but also removing future incentive for an organization turning to an app like that in the first place.
    • Dan-Q2 minutes ago
      I&#x27;m the original author (but not the poster here on HN).<p>Yeah, I considered that. I even wrote the code in such a way that it supports that. But I&#x27;m concerned about the legality of distributing it. Given that it hits API endpoints that were expected to be private to the developers&#x27; app, giving away a &quot;tool&quot; that bypasses the app (which hosts ads, albeit for their other products, and so serves as a money-maker for the app&#x27;s owner) could be illegal.<p>At the very least, it could be a violation of the terms of service or just an annoyance to the app developer, either of which could lead them to trying to stop me from doing it, which would be an inconvenience. So maybe I&#x27;ll wait until after the trip, when the page becomes useless to me, and THEN open-source it!
  • ed_mercer40 minutes ago
    This is awesome. I think the much bigger use case here is building web equivalents of apps that are only available on iOS&#x2F;Android.
  • viaredux19 minutes ago
    Amazing. Love the dedication to fix this minor annoyance, which I also share. Would be great if there was a kind of universal tool for this, as I am sure many of those shitty apps share the same internals.
  • cainxinth29 minutes ago
    Preach!