zlacker

The author is not contesting that the app experience is better. Yeah, the web experience is worse -- because the product people are treating the entire web presence as a _marketing surface_ for the app. So, the web version is basically an ad for the app. This is true of Reddit, Yelp, and others. How could it not be worse?

It's too bad because it's not like the web is incapable of providing a beautiful ux for those products. But then so why do you think these companies employ massive teams of devs, for Android, and then again for iOS, reimplementing their functionality on every platform? All that to provide you with that sweet extra smooth native "feel", 2% nicer than the web could do? No, it's not for you...

>>montro+(OP)
> No, it's not for you...

This is key. Companies pushing apps is not for your benefit. It's so they can further monetize you right under your nose and with your full permission by accepting their EULA. This is just a furtherance of the if you don't pay for the product you are the product.

>>dylan6+R
Companies still have to provide value for them to attract users. It's cynical to only look at the value the company gets and ignoring the value users and advertisers get.

>>charci+83
Companies have to provide the perception of providing value.

>>charci+83
I argue that this decade shows you do not have to provide value. You capture the market yester-decade and then you can hold the users hostage as you do any and everything to appeal to shareholders and advertisers.

This is indeed a short term strategy, but tech companies right now are thinking very short term.

>>johnny+T5
Agreed, this is post-capture monetization.

>>charci+83
Take Reddit, which is one of the few sites mentioned here that I use. At least initially, the value provided is getting rid of the constant prompts to load the site in the Reddit app. Even though I use old.reddit.com, which doesn't have those prompts, there are times when it redirects me to the new website automatically. Does it offer value beyond getting rid of those messages? Perhaps, but I doubt that it is the type of value that I would be looking for.

>>johnny+T5
How do you hold users hostage without providing them value?

>>II2II+Z9
How about the value of being able to talk to people who share the same hobby you do. Or the value of being able to see a community made wiki about some topic you are trying to learn about. Even being able to see cat pictures is valuable to people.

>>charci+6b
Nostalgia, network effects, and boiling thr frog. Then you build on that with business incentives; you may not like Facebook, but you need to advertise there because that's where everyone is.

Basically, you rely on goodwill from yester-year and slowly ad in intrusive stuff that users adjust to. Thars enshittification in its raw essence. Admittedly, this mostly works because the general user is not "active" and will not take the time to migrate unless something absolutely scandalous happens. For them, it's easier putting up with ads than trying to log into an ad free substitute.

>>johnny+jc
Nostalgia changes how people perceive value. Network effects is about how exponential value can be gained from linear user growth. Boiling the frog us about slowly doing things to avoid changing how people perceive value. None of these are a sign a product has no value.

No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers.

>will not take the time to migrate

Sure, people don't actively seek to maximize the value they receive, but that doesn't mean what they are currently getting value from doesn't have value.

>>dylan6+R
We have moved beyond that. Even if you pay, you’re usually still the product.

>>charci+gb
You can do that on the website.

>>charci+gb
None of that is unique to the app though, and existed before the app.

>>charci+Ae
> None of these are a sign a product has no value.

You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value.

>No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers

No one is disputing that the advertisers are getting value. The pursuit of advertiser value at the expense of users is the complaint.

>>charci+gb
We should be able to get that value in a fair way without giving up massive amounts of information in sketchy ways.

>>charci+gb
I tend to use Reddit on mobile as a read-only medium, but I don't see why one couldn't contribute to conversations/wikis with a mobile browser. One can certainly do so through their website with a desktop browser. If there is a barrier, it would be artificial.

It's also worth noting that I have nothing against apps. I use them to read RSS feeds, download podcasts, etc.. Yet those are independent of any particular service and there is enough choice between apps that I can use one that respects my privacy. I am not being limited in any way. If anything, it is more empowering since the developers of a dedicated RSS feed reader is more likely to design an app that is directed towards the needs of its users. In contrast, the Reddit app is directed towards the needs of Reddit.

>>montro+(OP)
> It's too bad because it's not like the web is incapable of providing a beautiful ux for those products.

I’ve never seen a web app I was happy with being a web app. I understand that a lot of people prefer web-based tools but a lot of us cannot stand them and try to get our work out of the browser as much as possible because we dislike the UX of the browser platform.

>>thfura+cg
moving beyond is usually what happens when something is furtheranced

>>charci+Ae
> Network effects is about how exponential value can be gained from linear user growth

network effects is the momentum that keeps everyone from stopping the use of the service/product. it takes too much energy to stop, so people just keep using. it also helps there's nothing to replace. any fledgling service that might offer an alternative just gets bought up by the service.

>>c-hend+sg
Nothing existed before a user was born. It is impossible for someone that has always had something to imagine in a real manner what not having it would be like. Hell, if there's an AWS outage for a couple of hours, those that have always had it freak out like the world is ending.

>>thfura+zg
>You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value.

Which is why they weren't useful to bring up.

>>thfura+kg
I never claimed it doesn't.

>>johnny+jc
It is both mysterious and comical how we manage to enshitify every corner of our existence. I can't think of anything unrubbed with the magic poop wand.

>>charci+6b
Monopoly, network effect

>>econ+vw
Must be hard to understand or something?

The scope of the problem is much larger. If there is no "let's not use the app" movement and if there was it wouldn't be big enough to pick up on the radar.

We have bigger things to worry about as the shit is oozing out of everything.

>>montro+(OP)
The web is definitely incapable of hacking the speed of light, though. And if you want truly instantaneous search - I mean deterministic, keystroke by keystroke - you have to put your data as close to the customer as possible, ideally right on the same device, ideally right in the same process.

Is this necessary for most commercial projects? Of course not. But many of the programs I consider the nicest to work with today are that way precisely because someone fought back against the call of the network.

>>charci+Fo
Then what was your claim?

>>arthur+1C
Like the other posters you are giving reasons why people will not switch to alternatives, but you are failing to argue why people are stuck using an app that provides no value.

>>dylan6+Tm
It is - from the company point of view.

>>bornfr+n01
Isn’t that precisely the point with this thread? It’s all from the company’s perspective. They’ve just gaslit the users into thinking it is from the user’s perspective.

>>charci+nR
for one, it's a nice little icon on the desktop of their device. you click it, and it launches the very thing you are looking to do. a browser means you have to click to open the browser. then you have to type the specific URL which is already something way more demanding than clicking the single icon even if they do remember the URL.

for another, devs are definitely making the web experience subpar which has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. most websites are just adverts for their apps if they function at all any more. loading a website on mobile is even worse than desktop as they pester you with "it's better in the app" pop ups.

people find browsing an app store much easier than browsing the web. in fact, do people browse the web at all any more. search is shit now, so discovery by search is not what it used to be. click through from search is also plummeting as "search assistant" type responses means no reason to click through to sites.

how many more reasons do you need?

>>fiddle+Ek
How about Google Flights as an example?

>>charci+zo
No, the difference between value and perceived value was pretty much their point.

>>montro+(OP)
I wonder if that explains why focus and scroll (via arrow keys and page up/down) is broken on so many websites.

>>aiisju+ue1
I’ve never really used Google flights: I tend to buy delta tickets either on my desktop via the website or via the Delta mobile app.

I prefer the Apple Weather app on desktop and mobile to weather websites, though; and, I prefer the Google Map mobile app to mobile website.

>>fiddle+Ek
G maps is surprisingly doable. Been using it as a web app for years now whenever my main map app CityMapper fails.

>>thfura+JQ
That the mobile app is providing value to people. So companies paying to make the app are also providing value to people.

>>dylan6+7c1
>how many more reasons do you need?

One. Because I don't believe one exists. The reasons you gave of it looking nice and accomplishing something the user wants to do provide value to the user.

>>thfura+8l1
I see perceived values as more of a multiplier. If an app had 0 value, 0 times anything is still 0. You can't take hostages over something with no value. If people didn't value their life it wouldn't work, similarly if people saw 0 value in an app they wouldn't use it.

>>charci+OZ1
My argument was about how value is decreasing. No one is arguing that these websites have zero value to begin with.

A more interesting thought experiment is where that threshold is before the lack of value invigorates the energy needed to migrate. That's part of why I put the boiling frog metaphor there. Rate of change definitely has impact on perceived value.

>>econ+KI
They are localized, and not enough to overcome the migration Apathy. Reddit in 2023 was a great example of a high profile boycott that ultimately failed (in terms of impacting revenue. You can definitely argue brain drain).

>We have bigger things to worry about as the shit is oozing out of everything.

Yes, but "Tech bad/greedy" is about as far as we can push on HN before it becomes "too political" and and people/bots try to hide the story. At least I have other sources to discuss those matters.

>>charci+ZY1
if the website already provides the value, there is no need for the app. instead, they cripple the website to push people to the app. why? it is more profitable for the company because of the data they can get from the app. doesn't matter if the UX is worse for the user. they only need to make it just usable enough

>>johnny+Bb2
In the early days a comment came with a footer with links to the authors little homepage, FOSS project or startup business. Killing this also killed organic linking. This idea that all self promotion is evil was the greatest mistake. That Google went along with it and even promoted nofollow puzzled me greatly.

I haven't put any effort in writing long well-researched comments since that time. I wouldn't dare put more than 2 references in a comment here. 4 would be pushing it.

As if nothing interesting was written before about anything?