zlacker

[return to "Do not download the app, use the website"]
1. tempes+xJ[view] [source] 2025-07-26 06:31:41
>>foxfir+(OP)
At AutoTempest we resisted making an app for years, because anything that a hypothetical app could do, we could do with the website. And in my opinion, when searching for cars, it's more convenient to be in your browser where you can easily open new tabs, bookmark results, etc.

And for years, it was our most requested feature, by far. We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant requests for an app. Finally we relented and released one, and very quickly around half our mobile traffic moved to the app without us really trying to nudge people at all.

People just really like apps! I think it suits our mental model of different tools for different uses. We've also found that app users are much more engaged than website users, but of course much of that will be selection bias. Still, I can see how having your app on someone's home screen could provide a significant boost to retention, compared to a website they're liable to forget. For us now, that's the main benefit we see. Certainly don't use any additional data, though I won't argue that other companies don't.

◧◩
2. kelthu+zM[view] [source] 2025-07-26 07:13:43
>>tempes+xJ
>We had instructions for how to pin the site to your home screen, and would explain to users how the website does everything an app can do. Still, constant requests for an app.

This is the result of the inconsistent user experience to which gatekeepers like Apple have been actively contributing through active sabotage of web apps, such that all profitable apps can be more effectively and reliably taxed through Apple's App Store.

The manufactured perception of the general public then became that web apps are not "real apps" despite offering the exact same features. They have been dragged down by the subtle artificial friction that makes the UX feel subpar.

This reminds me of my own experience of mobile websites when they first emerged. I thought that the desktop version of a website is the "real website" i.e. that there is only one static original website and that its mobile version was some fake substitute, so I always activated the option "show desktop version". Then I learned about responsive web design and it clicked for me. I predict that a similar epiphany will occur among casuals once the active sabotage of web apps stops due to regulations reigning in the anti-competitive business practices of gatekeepers.

I'm sure that some people will still prefer "native" apps for whatever reason. However, if regulators do a proper job and allow web apps to compete on a level playing field, then a lay person wouldn't even be able to differentiate between them. This is even the case today where some developers simply wrap their web app in a WebView and ship it as a "native" app.

◧◩◪
3. gargan+ge1[view] [source] 2025-07-26 13:02:29
>>kelthu+zM
Isn't the Mac way a good thing though? For example everything on Windows is moving to web apps where I feel they can load just as many trackers onto you eg https://www.theverge.com/news/710509/whatsapp-windows-app-we...

Whereas on Mac, Meta are keeping their native app presumably because they can't be in the Mac app store with just a web wrapper

But maybe I've just got the exact delusion youre talking about in that I view the app as having more functionality. Maybe they need to free web apps to be on a level playing field as you say

◧◩◪◨
4. akdev1+qj1[view] [source] 2025-07-26 13:54:24
>>gargan+ge1
Most apps on Mac are not on the App Store

You download a DMG file or something, then you drag and drop some icon into your “applications” folder

It is kind of dumb. I haven’t seen any graphical package manage interface to handle this.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jdiff+Ok1[view] [source] 2025-07-26 14:08:03
>>akdev1+qj1
The App Store is the graphical package manager interface. Or in the case of apps that haven't published, the Finder/Applications folder itself. It makes a lot of sense, similar to the way GoboLinux stashed packages in its new world filesystem hierarchy. One folder, one package.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. johnis+3X1[view] [source] 2025-07-26 20:02:47
>>jdiff+Ok1
You do not need a new filesystem hierarchy for it. I have a "one folder one package" kind of setup (among others), e.g. packages are at ~/.local/pkg and I have them symlinked from there to ~/.local. It works for many programs. I use "zpkg", but you could use "GNU stow", too.
[go to top]