zlacker

[return to "Apple’s refusal to support Progressive Web Apps is a detriment to the web"]
1. interp+W9[view] [source] 2017-07-27 12:48:02
>>jaffat+(OP)
I hate using web apps. On desktop, mobile, wherever. The author's list of things they want supported by Mobile Safari is just aggravating:

> Here are a list of things you still can’t do with mobile safari due to Apple’s refusal to support them:

>

> Create an app loading screen

> Use push notifications

> Add offline support

> Create an initial app UI to load instantly

> Prompt installation to the home screen through browser-guided dialog

Why do I want these things, as a user. App loading screens?

I love the web. I love hyperlinks, text and images. The web of connections that lead you to information. Everything in that list is detrimental to a good experience on the web.

I don't want push notifications, I barely enable them for native apps. And it bugs the hell out of me when every second website in desktop Safari prompts to send me push notifications. No. Why would I want this on mobile?

Same thing with the home screen. I love the fact that the address bar in my web browser is my history, my reminders, my bookmarks, my open tabs. I start typing what I want and I'm there. Finding native apps on my home screen is only just getting to the same place with Spotlight, why would I want to make the web worse by sticking icons for pages on my home screen?

And browser-guided dialogs to put more icons on my home screen? Seriously?

This author's post is a great argument against web apps on mobile.

◧◩
2. criley+Lh[view] [source] 2017-07-27 13:54:10
>>interp+W9
I completely disagree, to be frank.

Why do I need a native binary, tens of thousands of lines of code, an app with a massive permissions access to my device...

To read a news article?

To book a flight?

To comment on an internet post?

Adding a few more "app features" to light web pages sounds a whole lot more attractive than banishing all useful functionality into the den of apps, where only larger teams and more experienced developers can roll out even basic functionality.

◧◩◪
3. matthe+Hj[view] [source] 2017-07-27 14:05:05
>>criley+Lh
Why do I need a native binary, tens of thousands of lines of code, an app with a massive permissions access to my device...

You don't – but why do you need loading screens, push notifications, or any of that other stuff either?

The web is great in concept for document-oriented information and some application uses. Mobile applications are greater for richer user interfaces and more device integration. They both have their strengths, and I think it's okay to accept that.

◧◩◪◨
4. Ajedi3+an[view] [source] 2017-07-27 14:26:55
>>matthe+Hj
> loading screens, push notifications

You seem to be laser-focused on this one tiny part of PWAs. There's way more too it than that, like offline support, background sync, etc. Imagine if you could press a button on the page to save that article you're reading for later, and have it available offline next time you need it.

Or what if you could write a comment while offline, and have it be automatically posted next time you have a connection. (Or optionally, have a notification pop-up next time you're online asking if you still want to post it.)

PWAs are just flat out _better_ than existing web apps. It's remarkable to me that so many people seem to be against these incredibly useful features just because the app they're using is web-based rather than native.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ino+Iq[view] [source] 2017-07-27 14:47:15
>>Ajedi3+an
> Imagine if you could press a button on the page to save that article you're reading for later, and have it available offline next time you need it.

This is available on Safari, the same browser the author is bashing and comparing to IE.

And it's synced across macOS and iOS. It's called "reading list". It works with airplane mode and everything.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Christ+Nr[view] [source] 2017-07-27 14:53:41
>>ino+Iq
> And it's synced across macOS and iOS. It's called "reading list". It works with airplane mode and everything.

If only we had a standard way to do this...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. interp+Lz[view] [source] 2017-07-27 15:44:39
>>Christ+Nr
> If only we had a standard way to do this...

Well it seems like either each and every website could build offline support and background sync into their site, or you could use a browser that does it for you.

In the former case, if you rely on sites integrating it, you could be frustrated when some sites do not implement background sync and offline support (or do it badly).

Having the browser do it seems simpler. Especially given the real world use cases for this feature.

(I'm not against having these technologies on the web. Just seems more sensible for a browser to do your reading list — just like it manages your tabs.)

[go to top]