zlacker

>>gnitin+(OP)
I still, will never understand the need for native "Apps". To this day, I have never seen an "App" that couldn't simply have been a website/webapp. Most of them would likely be improved by being a webapp.

The only benefits I can see of "Apps", are the developer get's access to private information they really don't need.

Yeah, they get to be on the "App Store". But the "App Store" is a totally unnecessary concept introduced by Apple/Google so they could scrape a huge percentage in sales.

Web browsers have good (not perfect) sandboxing, costs no fees to "submit" and are accessible to everyone on every phone.

>>turble+KJ
Its funny to read negative replies to your comment on the shortcoming's of web apps.

The browsers are controlled and manipulated by the likes of Apple and Google. These companies have a significant influence on the direction of browser features and limitations, often shaping them to suit their business interests. For example, Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome have been criticized for implementing features that reinforce their own ecosystems, such as limiting web push notifications or restricting certain web API functionalities to encourage users toward their native apps. This ultimately means that even in the browser world, the same forces that drive the app store monopolies can still control and restrict what’s possible, even if the web is inherently more open. So while web apps offer more flexibility than native apps in theory, the reality is that Apple and Google’s control over the browsers still limits the true potential of a completely open web.