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.
I cannot agree more and this has always been a pet peeve of mine.
Most native apps are some half gig large where even the heaviest website is a few mb. They dont let you highlight text and have other bizarre design choices. Even worse, they request importing contacts list which isnt even an option on the web.
Native apps could be butter but more often than not they are like margarine. Smooth, oily, and not good for you.
> If you've ever opened Reddit, LinkedIn, Pinterest, or practically any popular service on your phone's web browser, you've likely encountered it.
Another website that asks to Get The App is https://imgur.com/ , every time you open a link to just view that image you instantly got asked to Get The App. It's really annoying!
Don’t agree, but to each their own. The native app experience for every app noted in the article is better and smoother than the mobile web version, in my opinion. Lots of people hate Electron apps, which suggests to me that my preference for native apps isn’t unique.
Web apps can ask for your location or microphone the same way native apps can. Just reject it, there’s nothing that says you have to accept on either platform, so to say that’s a negative for native apps is odd.
The biggest downside of native apps is you can’t customize them with extensions or user styles like you can with websites.
The problem is, this article assumes that you have an option to choose between the app and web page. This is not true in most important cases. The web site is gone or made a useless page which only tells you to download the app. Banks won't allow you to do much on their website. Infact, you can't login to their website if you don't have the app. I can't login into my work PC or laptop, if I don't use my company apps.
Same goes for every serious app which need to ID you. The app-based 2FA/MFA is becoming the standard for the web access. This is a need or pattern created by availability of a bad solution. Similar to how the cars created sprawling cities in the USA which prohibits you using your legs.
So, telling people to use website instead of app, is the same as telling them to walk to the corner shop instead of using a car. You can't walk to the many other essential places anymore, though.
You can escape from the car if you live a small village that has everything you need. But you can't escape from apps and internet if you need to feel that you exist in this world.
I don't know if they're affiliated but I recently came across one after already knowing of the other. The name means something like "app compulsion" in both languages, as in being forced to use apps. Very much in line with the submitted article above
Is there such a resource for English already? A place or movement we can link to
I was a heavy Quora user from 2014 to 2019 with fairly many answers and questions. In 2019 they essentially blocked website for mobile users and urged them to download the app. That's when I decided to respect my dignity and deleted my account.
If you have a website, everyone with a browser should be able to use it.
I don't offer a native app for my business. We have a PWA. It works great on mobile. Yet users keep asking for an app. They're so conditioned to look in the app store now. I keep having to tell them to just pin the website to their desktop. Just a couple taps. All good.
I don't need or want their data. It's a liability. They pay a monthly subscription. I want their money. Not their data.
Don’t forget the ability to send push notifications. I think that’s one of the main reasons — it turns your whole relationship with a product on its head: you lose control over when you’re engaging, instead they can literally push their services and ads on you.
I think for companies, the main advantage of an app is the opportunity for uncontrolled data ab/use.
Let me explain. Say you order food online — you’d want a notification to update you, instead of having to manually refresh a webpage. So you prefer using the app. But what’s the guarantee the company won’t also send you marketing notifications? You give contact permission to access just one contact, but what’s stopping the app from uploading your whole contact list to their servers? You allow location for one check-in, but they start logging your GPS every minute? Every permission asked & given for right purpose end up as consent-full data siphons.
And honestly, if the app world hadn’t taken off, the web would have invented its own version of permission systems. So yeah, I dis/agree with the article’s title — web can do everything apps can; including the shady data siphoning.
Some people might argue that they need excessive data to serve right ads, make money and keep the app free — the only way. But I don't think so, even if you pay for the app, they will need excessive data to ensure you keep renewing.
Idc about privacy, apps are just annoying cause even downloading free ones requires auth for some reason (on iPhone), then they always want to update, then your OS gets too out of date and they stop working.
You know what’s wild? We’ve reached a point where the “download our app!” pop-up is basically the digital equivalent of a mall kiosk worker chasing you down with a lotion sample. I just want to read the article, not sign up for a recurring relationship. The web is supposed to be open, frictionless, and—dare I say—fun. Instead, it’s become a minefield of dark patterns, nag screens, and “please enable notifications!” popups.
I love that this post is pushing back on the norm. Maybe, just maybe, we can start a movement to make the web usable again. Or at least make “No, thanks” actually mean “No, thanks.”
The Discord web app is nearly identical to the desktop app. The main things you are missing are global push-to-talk and rich presence (i.e. dicord spies on your process list and tells other people what games you are playing). I'm always surprised more people don't use it.
just 1hr ago (1 AM local time) I saw 'your app is live on app store' notification on my phone and eagerly launched it... only to have it crash instantly. After a debug session I discovered an obscure bug in tflite library that only shows up in release builds. 20 minutes ago I pushed a hotfix with an expedited App Review request, hoping to spare as many users as possible from that crash. I can't wrap my head around how the appstore review missed it, especially after rejecting our last build 4 times over a barely legible location-permission alert description.
That said, I built my first mobile app 15 years ago, and to this day, building for mobile remains the most frustrating part of my programming life.
Needed a new SIM in the UK recently so ordered a pay as you go one from Vodafone. Discovered to my horror that the new payg 'plus' can only be used with an app (that's locked to UK Google play Store) and a credit card for monthly recurring payments. No possibility of buying credit on a website or In store. Presumably so Vodafone can slurp up credit card details and all the juicy data mentioned in this article. Tossed in the bin and found a regular old school payg sim that I can top up with cash from a corner shop, but presumably this won't be possible for much longer.
I understand but it’s not always with bad intentions.
In the Netherlands we have a system called DigiD to login into to most government websites like your taxes and city, etc.
When I contracted for the city of Amsterdam I learned they’ve been pushing hard for the DigiD app to two factor authenticate instead of text message, because of contracts Digid charges a lot per text message validation and none for app.
One big drawback is represented by banking apps, that force the usage of their apps to act as a 2 Factor Authentication mechanism, sending a request for logging in.
I would like to use only the browser, but unfortunately for some use cases it isn't really possible.
I don't even get "The Unseen Cost of Convenience" as frequently the app is not "convenient", it's just worse -- especially on tablet platforms where a desktop site is just fine, and a desktop site at AAA accessibility is perfect.
I wish Apple and Google would make rules to the effect of "if your app's entire functionality could be done in a regular website or PWA, then you can't put a native app on our stores".
For a lot of non technical people, if the "website" was in the app store and installing just resulted in an icon for the site on the home screen they would never clamor for a "real" app. They wouldn't know or care about the difference.
Besides collecting data, there are more obvious and less sinister reasons for asking people to use an app:
Engagement and real estate.
Keeping the users up to date is way easier with push notifications, especially with younger audiences who are less likely to read email.
And the app sits there on the Home Screen and advertises itself without having to do anything, while a web page relies on the user remembering its name and go there.
The primary challenge here is that companies are hamstrung by browser-level API's by companies like Google and Apple where they provide them only if you build an app. This forces developers to keep maintaining and providing apps, even though every developer knows that their headaches would be less than halved if they could just support the same capabilities via browser-level apis.
Lightweight SSR web apps running on modern server stacks can run circles around the overall experience of most mobile apps, which are oftentimes also just (much worse) web apps under the cover.
HN is a good example of an SSR web experience done right. How often do you hear members complaining about lack of official hacker news apps? I think the biggest reason is because the site is so simple and fast. There is zero jank to run away from. I can participate on the site just fine even if I'm on the edge of no signal in the desert. I don't need a fancy offline client side model. I need it to be tight enough to fit across a shitty pipe before it disappears.
UI/UX is one of the hardest things you can do, but when done well you can make it work in any medium. Native "feel" is not an excuse in my book. Safari feels pretty damn native to me right now.
There is only 1 reason for encouraging customers or users to use the app, and that is RRR (Retention, Retargeting & Re-engagement), which is very high in mobile.
Great piece. There was a point last decade where literally every person I encountered, upon hearing about my site, would start badgering me to "get an app." If asked what this hypothetical app could do that the site didn't, the answer was that it would just be good to have an app.
Now in 2025 my biggest app-pain is being in the already useless live support chat for a phone co or utility company and they keep insisting that I'll get actual support if I download their stupid app. Again, they can't cite a reason - it's just "better." For data-brokering, sure - for the user, barely ever.
"Websites can try to estimate your location, but it's far less precise and requires explicit permission each time."
The better solution is do not use a phone. Using a phone requires using a mobile browser. One of the worst "apps" of them all. If it is Firefox, then one needs to block a ton of telemetry. It is constantly trying to determine if it can reach the internet and then trying to access "location.services.mozilla.org" amongst numerous other domains. Mozilla partners with Google. They share data.
> If you've ever opened Reddit, LinkedIn, Pinterest, or practically any popular service on your phone's web browser, you've likely encountered it.
Why leave out an incredibly egregious offender here in good old google? I'd been relatively on the fence google wise until they started consistently and repeatedly asking me to install their bullshit app. Why on earth would I ever want to install your app when all I want to do is run a fucking search query and leave you again?
The article overlooked another important reason for companies to push their apps: Notifications.
Notifications are the spam of 2020s. Just like with other permissions, people mindlessly accept permissions for the app to send notifications, opening a huge marketing opportunity for the app vendor. People even keep those notifications popping up on their smart watches!
Ads directly on your wrist - it's a marketers wet dream come true.
I’m also (old enough? to) avoid apps when I can. Sadly the history made it a thing. And while it’s not only Apple. As the early incarnation of mobile web. Apple has a lot of it on its name.
1. Original iPhone aimed for that. No AppStore. But developers especially when web stack was poor, wanted native access. It did make sense back then to ideas like WhatsApp or some audio and video apps.
2. Then Apple understood they can get a cut if they operate the AppStore.
3. Then companies understood they can benefit from more data….
I’ve recently moved country and that’s real lame. Almost any supermarket or restaurant here wants me to become a “member” and enforce me to download their app (no web!).
I’ve ended up creating another Apple account since those apps weren’t available in my origin country AppStore.
Most of those apps can pretty much be web apps (they actually are :) ) but insist of me downloading something with more data.
I don’t really think the desire for more data holds up as the primary motivation for companies wanting apps. To be clear I also hate being forced to use apps, but every metric I have seen shows app users are more engaged, make more purchases and have better retention then website users, I don’t remember specifically but it was always significant like 3x, and yes they want push notifications and those direct channels to customer on their devices. Apps are sandboxed and generally pretty privacy focused if you just tap no when they ask you for your first born. Contacts? You need explicit permission. Photos on device? You need explicit permission. Local networking? Explicit permission. Push notifications? Explicit permission. Cross site tracking? Explicit permission (although that is more recent and i am sure bad actors find ways around it).
Totally agree. It's even difficult to accommodate too many apps in the mobile. I myself have been very cautious about the permissions, but it's a planned collaborative design of the smart phone ecosystem and so it's nearly impossible to protect personal data completely.
Also the entire tech industry is almost surviving on the promise of surveillance state and economy as if looked carefully there aren't that many success stories of the tech outside of the very obvious financial and automation industries. And that can serve only upto a certain level, but the hype of tech is way beyond that. To match that, they are desperate to break any law and all morals.
Also a glance at our own investment portfolio will tell us that it's our collective quest for wealth growth is the actual driving force of this 'everything financial' tech industry.
The web gives us control over the way we interact with governments and companies. Because it allows modification, it can be used flexibly in ways that the organization did not think about or intend. This is always beneficial to the user.
With the web, we have:
- Translation
- Read outloud
- Plugins for dark mode
- Ad blocking
> If you've ever opened Reddit, LinkedIn, Pinterest
And Facebook. I swear they intentionally make the website as bad as possible for mobile browsers. Explicitly disabled sending messages a few years ago. Do they really think someone who resisted their push to apps for 10+ years would submit one day?
The author makes some good points, but native apps can absolutely provide a better experience than web apps in certain scenarios.
Bloated web apps with megabytes worth of JavaScript and CSS, crappy rendering performance, etc. are all too common. Far too many web apps are unusable or broken if you have any content/ad blockers enabled, which are almost a necessity in order to use the modern web.
Conversely, you download a native app once, and update it infrequently. Load times can be instantaneous. Offline support is far more robust.
To completely write off native apps just because some of those apps abuse the trust of users seems silly. Plenty of web apps have piles and piles of invasive ads and trackers as well.
This is a bit off topic, but mobile first has caused some websites to not support the desktop version at all. They say there are not many users access them from PCs. I'm very shocked that they just have decided to end the desktop version support because of current # of visitors, even though they have given superior experience through the desktop version. These days I feel like our window to look around the world getting smaller. I have a 32 inch monitor but to shop something, I have to use my 6.8 inch phone.
On Android, I use the Hermit app. It containerizes webpages to give it an app-like look, feel, and some behaviours. It saves me from installing a lot of apps whose services offer website.
I'd argue that a this task can be taken up by the mobile browser itself: i.e., to offer to install a shortcut icon that'll launch the page within an app container/sandbox. The common resistance to using website directly--and thus the preference to use the app, other than for performance reasons--stems from the inconvenience of typing and navigating on a small screen. If the browser helpfully offers to bypass that step (you've to do that at most once), a large number of apps would suddenly lose their pull.
I dream of developing mobile sites that can play audio with the screen off and use the same media controls as apps (think: music player apps while driving). A lot of the things that make mobile sites second class is the lack of screen-off functionality.
I think that while data is a major point here, in my opinion, these are the reasons apps are preferred by developers:
1. Persistence: while websites are very easy to close, deleting an app is much more difficult and usually requires pressing on some “red buttons” and scary dialogs. It also makes sure the user now has a button for your app on their Home Screen which makes it a lot more accessible.
2. Notifications: while they exist for websites too, they are much less popular and turned off by default. Notifications are maybe the best way to get the user to use your app.
And while I hate the dark patterns some companies use (Meta, AliExpress, etc), I do understand why installing the app worth so much to them.
I do the exact opposite. I’ll use the app even if accessing the website is more convenient. Usually the app experience is more polished, and denying any permission is trivial. Also, I have a system-wide app/tracking blocker.
Asking as a software dev, is is better to have a website or an app?
I would just assume that a website is better for getting new users cus of the lower bar to entry, theres no install, a lot of peoples phones are full.
Also you can go from QRcode or clicking 1 link directly to the app.
Whereas with an app, you have a link or QRcode that goes to the correct store, then install on the store, and then open.
I get that an app would be better for retention, as they could put the icon on their desktop (or whatever it's called) But I assume a site would be better for getting initial visitors cus of much lower barrier to entry.
> And let's be honest, how many of us meticulously read through every single permission pop-up? Most of the time, we just tap "Allow" to get to what we want to do.
I do. I also, without exception, read and make sure that I understand every single word of every piece of legalese that I’m presented with to agree to and/or sign. My wife sometimes jokes that she married me so that I could become her in-house attorney. I digress…
You should regularly review and reevaluate all of your devices’ configurations/settings from a privacy and security perspective (I do so at least once every two weeks).
Websites can also access your GPS location and all of the other permissions the article named you have to give the app specific permissions for it. A website can track you across websites much easier than apps can
I agree with the article but it's not like there are zero benefits to the app. When I have low or intermittent data, a local cache plus minimal data sent to an API is usually much more responsive
I feel like this didn't touch on the second most important reason not to download the app.
Most of us over use (or are addicted to) our phones and especially to social media. Every barrier you can put in you way to prevent opening it is an improvement.
Opening safari and then having to type in the site name is a better barrier than just opening an app. Logging out every time is a barrier. Putting timers on websites through screen time is a barrier. All these tools help us fight against tech controlling us instead of us controlling the tech.
I agree. The intended audience agrees. The general population could care less and will continue to use spyware. I think the real question should be how do we go about making the public care?
Depends on the app for me. I'd never install Facebook or Instagram just because of how aggressive they want your data. Reddit seems sus recently too. I install Discord though.
> Think about it this way. What can a website on your browser really get from you?
> Apps, on the other hand, are a different beast entirely.
Then the article mentions how it can collect user's location, contacts, etc. But some of those information can be tracked by linking the google tracker (and various other trackers) to the website visitor's identity. It's harder but it can still be done (privacy badger and other methods can help i think).
Specifically with offline first scenarios, you'll end up with lots of JS and client side shapes that need local persistence and sent back to server.
So while view transitions should be first consideration for always online apps such as ticketng system, price comparison, classified portals etc but they aren't probably that suitable for offline first scenarios that keep operating even in face of few days of Internet outage.
Not mentioned in this article, but an installed app also makes it much easier for the vendor to maintain shadow profiles to identify unique users with multiple logins.
The main benefit I liked with apps was at least I only logged in once and then stayed logged in forever. I liked this with apps whose security I didn’t care about- lamp bulbs, Alexa, insurance benefits, etc.
But now I get prompted to log in again and so I’d rather not take up the space for the app on my phone.
Uber Eats is 500MB and should be a web site only app. Etc etc
I 100% agree with this, but a significant way that mobile websites often decay the experience compared to the app is with very short-lived login sessions.
Even when the experience is otherwise basically identical, I've found that login sessions in a browser are sometimes measured in days, where in the app sessions never expire.
Which feels like app install metric juicing to me.
The only way to make website usage more prominent is to do the Windows Phone approach: make every browser tab the same as an app tab. If you treat a website the same as an app, there is less need for the app.
Although what sucks with websites is to always see the address bar and often having little to no settings nor notification support.
I’ve noticed that every time I open a browser to use the web version of an app, I get distracted and end up browsing unrelated stuff.
Switching to a standalone app helps me avoid that — fewer distractions, less wasted time. I’ve tried breaking the habit, but this is one reason I still prefer desktop version of the website.
Most of websites I use regularly are simply not "optimized" for mobile: broken features, display errors, inadequate UI, just unusable on the phone. And it's intentional: they're sabotaging the mobile experience just to push you into downloading their app.
I've found it somewhat kludgy to use most apps in their mobile web version, which was for me a benefit more than a curse. The friction in using Instagram on the web was just enough to stop me from doomscrolling, without obstructing all access to seeing what is happening with the people I care about.
Having a website and then a PWA for the people that REALLY want that is what I think the best arrangement is. Especially with the control that the stores (specifically app store) can have on you, the freedom of a website is much better than an app.
Streaming apps: actually sometimes need location to prevent you from streaming outside the jurisdiction. And it’s a better experience.
Lots of other apps: don’t ask for anything.
Does anyone let an app have access to their contacts? (Ok maybe just us nerds don’t)
So, no. It’s not usually about data. Sure, some of it is. But this is the wrong thread to pull on. It isn’t why they all force us to use apps.
The reason is that Apple has hampered the web experience to push everyone to apps. All of these problems are solvable with a web browsers, if it worked better. We have the technology. But Apple does not have an incentive to make the web work as well as apps. It destroys their revenue streams. They lose control. The problem is Apple, not all these apps that are trying to find their way in the walled Apple garden.
Of course this isn’t true for everything. But it is true enough. Why would they kill the golden goose?
I’ve added pages to my ios home screen which almost appears as a native app with some success. The thing is when the app doesn’t implicitly show a back button either via bread crumbs, a ‘cancel’ button or similar, navigation becomes more tricky. It beats installing random things on my phone though.
This is exactly the philosophy of what I’m building at TrackMonk! It’s a chat-first health tracker. Goal is to reduce as much friction as possible when it comes to health tracking!
One interesting side effect of this for instagram is that the website is much worse than the app, which makes it much harder to doom scroll. I have the app deleted on my phone and occasionally visit the website to check for messages and updates from friends
Having the app installed makes the initial load instant - big dopamine rush!
Seeing their logo on the home screen, before you even open your browser, means you might forget your big plan to search for alternatives. “Oh! Airbnb! I’ll just look there!”
The control aspect is another downside to (proprietary) native apps. It is much easier to modify a website's behaviour with extensions and userscripts than it is to create a mod for a native application to do the same thing.
I periodically delete my browser history and data for privacy (and many OEM Androids have a "cleaner" function that does the same). Having to log in every time is a hassle that's avoided by having dedicated apps.
I like mobile apps when I need quick access to a feature on the go. All my bank operations are done from the mobile app, I rarely use the website, and for best banks - never.
Mobile apps are great, but it does not mean you need one
If the website even lets you access. I use empower personal capital to track finances and on mobile they only support their app. And if it's broken (like it has been for the past month), tough noogies!
Most annoying to me is Google maps. On web it is wasting so much more screen real-estate when showing a route, I can barely see the map itself. The app has much smaller ui components. (android)
I especially detest companies whose website detects mobile device and absolutely forces use of the app when the website is perfectly usable from a desktop.
I totally agree with this point of view. Apps take up too much memory on mobile phones. I hope that browsing websites on mobile phones can be more convenient.
>The answer, in short, is data. A lot of it. And access. A whole lot more of that too.
This is it for reddit. They changed the Best sort to use general engagement metrics rather than upvotes (which are just one metric) back in 2021 [1], and this means that a lot of their metrics (time spent in comments, number of comments up/down voted, number of comments left on a post, etc.) benefit greatly from their app, which can track that with precision.
This is (IMO) responsible for reddit's degenerated current form, as it prioritizes gossip subs, AITA type Jerry Springer subs, etc., but that's a whole different conversation.
What are good examples of apps that have managed to monetize the precise location of millions of users in a way that isn't obvious (e.g. location-based advertising, or location-based filtering of social media content)?
Collecting that data sounds creepy and nefarious, but if i think about what Experian and everyone else already knows about me, I don't know what information my phone's location would actually add that has enough value to build a massive telemetry engine.
as an individual more on the unconventional side I've gotten so dissatisfied with this that I have a donki nanote next just for viewing websites on-the-go. I really wish that people made a mobile device that could do the job of a phone and laptop. We have the technology.
Honestly, this isn’t new at all. Most apps are pretty frustrating to use compared to just visiting the website. Even basic stuff like checking train or bus schedules or planning a route on Google Maps. It’s often worse in the app. With a browser, you can just open multiple tabs, switch between them freely, compare things side-by-side. Most apps don’t support this kind of multitasking at all.
What’s even more annoying lately is the whole “scan this QR code” or “click this button to open in-app browser” flow. You try to log in, get sent an email, and when you click the link, the session’s already gone in the in-app browser. It’s a mess.
So yeah… just use the web version. It’s simpler, more flexible, and honestly more reliable in most cases.
The other side of the coin is that website forces you to trust your data to the website and almost always locks you in with them (the regulation to provide "export" of data worth nothing if competitors are not required to be able to auto-import it). It is not as one-sided as this articles presents it.
My biggest peeve with the forced push towards apps is that you're often forced to fork over permissions to access valuable data that they couldn't otherwise gleam glean from a browser. Chief amongst this is the Contacts permission.
If you are one to carefully curate your contacts book to contain addresses, emails, birthdays for your own convenience and productivity, you have now provided a veritable goldmine of information for these companies to plunder, and betray the confidence of your acquaintances. I really despise this, and I've been looking for a solution but none thus far have seemed satisfactory.
I know of apps (at least on Android) like Bouncer and alternatives from F-Droid that can temporarily grant access to certain permissions like Location for a few minutes at a time, while giving the apps the illusion of full access.
However, save for using a Private Space or different user profile (both similarly require provisioning basically an extra instance of Google Play and everything) I haven't yet found a way to feed some sort of dummy contacts book to these greedy apps. If anyone knows of such a solution that is more convenient than setting up a new profile then please enlighten us.
The government where I live has a no-interest loan scheme for installing energy efficient appliances. Handy, so I used it to fund heat pumps and insulation.
The scheme is administered by Brighte. I signed up on their website. Everything going well for 6 months or so.
Then out of the blue, an email from them: "We just launched our app". Yeah, no, not interested.
A few weeks later, another "You should use our app, it's so convenient!". No, the website works fine. Can I unsubscribe from these notices? Customer service says no.
A few weeks after that: "Switch to our app. We are removing the website".
I email them to complain: I don't want or need their app, just let me use the website. No,they say, it's definitely being removed. I ask how people who don't want to or can't use their app are supposed to interact with them now? "you can always call us instead".
The idea of removing a perfectly functional website just to force everyone onto an app is insane.
I just despise the constant popups "The experience is better on the app, click here to download!"
I read news sites I pay for by scrolling through the home page and opening stories I want to read in new tabs, and then slowly reading and closing them throughout the day. Your app can't do that. Your app doesn't support tabs. It also doesn't support basic things like letting me zoom in on an image. And sometimes it crashes when I try to load comments.
I'm a paid subscriber, and I still get constant nagging every single day to use the app instead that is worse in every way.
And I don't even know why. They're just news sites. They don't ask for any permissions to slurp up my data. I honestly don't have the slightest idea why they keep pushing the app.
regarding data collection, both android and ios provide multiple ways to review, approve/deny, and manage access to data. it's certainly not perfect but is being constantly improved. And for the HN crowd, you can always run mobile security/privacy tools like mobSF to inspect the app. I'm not suggesting we should have to do this but we can and frankly browser fingerprinting is opaque, also constantly evolving and quite good at tracking and data collection. i'm not sure avoid the better ux of a native app is much worse and given the privacy tools and data available, I generally prefer the native app
The article is a reminder that the “mobile‑first” hype never really went away – most services still use dark patterns to get us to install their native app even when their mobile site works fine. Web apps are sandboxed; apart from cookies and basic fingerprinting, a site can’t do much unless you explicitly upload data. Native apps, by design, integrate deeply with the OS. They ask to read your contacts, track your precise location and movement, access your microphone and see what other apps are installed. Once granted, that permission often provides a “treasure trove of information and control” – and there’s no easy way to claw that data back.
However, it isn’t just greed. Native apps still have advantages the article glosses over: offline support, richer push‑notification APIs and OS‑level integration all contribute to better retention and engagement – the first HN commenter notes that their mobile traffic shifted to the app almost immediately after they released one, despite offering the same functionality on the web. Users also perceive mobile browsers as slow and bloated, which is partly because platform gatekeepers have dragged their feet on enabling powerful web features (service workers, better APIs) and have financial incentives to collect their 30% cut via app stores. Regulation like the EU’s Digital Markets Act may help level the playing field, but today the trade‑off is real: if you want privacy and control, stick with the website – just remember that websites can track you too.
Remove the ability for your phone to get "apps" from an "app store" - the same ability allows a remote party full and unilateral access to your device without your consent nor knowledge. GrapheneOS is a great start if this reality bothers you.
Unless your FB/Google etc. no this isn’t why companies want a mobile app. They want the infinitely better experience and functionality it brings to their users to keep them as customers.
Thanks to the EU for ruining the web by forcing everyone to show the ridiculous "Accept Cookies!" agreement. No wonder people prefer native apps. They’re better - for a lot of reasons, both because they can interface more cleanly with OS specific features and also for performance.
And 'privacy' is a horrible argument to prefer websites over apps. For the average person (not a privacy obsessed techie) - the web is just as bad if not worse from a privacy perspective than native apps.
I do agree that not everything needs an app - websites have their place. But when I go to browse HN on my phone, I don't do it through the web, I do it through Octal (which is open source).
Frankly I am tired of privacy-obsessed techies ruining tech for everyone else. Let's face it - 99% of the things you're worried about are simply going to let companies....show you ads that are more relevant to your life. The horror!
The reason most people use apps instead of websites is that the devices they are using do not have a desktop class browser in them. iOS and iPadOS devices specifically run the mobile version of Safari which makes using modern web apps a painful experience.
The one actual selling point a Microsoft Surface has over an iPad at this point is that you get to use real web browsers on it.
Today's world requires people to be ID checked everywhere. That requires the humans to be connected to internet. But humans are a biological things. How can they connect to internet? Well they can have chips embedded in them. A simpler approach is ... have a mobile phone and an app. Your mobile phone + app is similar to the network card that desktop used to have. Network card provided identity for the desktop and connected it to internet. Phone+app connects humans to internet with ID check. A browser can't do that, because browser is not considered 1-to-1 with humans or part of the humans, as much as phone is. Phone+app is your virtual clone. Browser is not.
I have started to think this is the real reason why so many apps have a messaging and voice chat features, not so they can orifice this services to you, but so you'll grant the access so they can spy on you and sell it to advertisers.
I randomly decided to try my hand at pottery using clay I've dug up from my yard. Talked about this in person with a few people, but hadn't posted anywhere online about it. Suddenly, Amazon is suggesting pottery equipment and supplies to me.
Do not download the app, use the website
(idiallo.com)1347 points by foxfired 25 July 2025 | 728 comments
Comments
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.
Most native apps are some half gig large where even the heaviest website is a few mb. They dont let you highlight text and have other bizarre design choices. Even worse, they request importing contacts list which isnt even an option on the web.
Native apps could be butter but more often than not they are like margarine. Smooth, oily, and not good for you.
Another website that asks to Get The App is https://imgur.com/ , every time you open a link to just view that image you instantly got asked to Get The App. It's really annoying!
Web apps can ask for your location or microphone the same way native apps can. Just reject it, there’s nothing that says you have to accept on either platform, so to say that’s a negative for native apps is odd.
The biggest downside of native apps is you can’t customize them with extensions or user styles like you can with websites.
so using the web is my go-to
i dont have reddit, on my phone for example.
Also, all those app icons are just "advertisement" every time you look at your phone screen... i dont need that.
if you REQUIRE me to use an app, then i'm only using it if i absolutely have to. (there's almost always an alternative)
Same goes for every serious app which need to ID you. The app-based 2FA/MFA is becoming the standard for the web access. This is a need or pattern created by availability of a bad solution. Similar to how the cars created sprawling cities in the USA which prohibits you using your legs.
So, telling people to use website instead of app, is the same as telling them to walk to the corner shop instead of using a car. You can't walk to the many other essential places anymore, though.
You can escape from the car if you live a small village that has everything you need. But you can't escape from apps and internet if you need to feel that you exist in this world.
German: https://appzwang.de
I don't know if they're affiliated but I recently came across one after already knowing of the other. The name means something like "app compulsion" in both languages, as in being forced to use apps. Very much in line with the submitted article above
Is there such a resource for English already? A place or movement we can link to
If you have a website, everyone with a browser should be able to use it.
I don't need or want their data. It's a liability. They pay a monthly subscription. I want their money. Not their data.
Let me explain. Say you order food online — you’d want a notification to update you, instead of having to manually refresh a webpage. So you prefer using the app. But what’s the guarantee the company won’t also send you marketing notifications? You give contact permission to access just one contact, but what’s stopping the app from uploading your whole contact list to their servers? You allow location for one check-in, but they start logging your GPS every minute? Every permission asked & given for right purpose end up as consent-full data siphons.
And honestly, if the app world hadn’t taken off, the web would have invented its own version of permission systems. So yeah, I dis/agree with the article’s title — web can do everything apps can; including the shady data siphoning.
Some people might argue that they need excessive data to serve right ads, make money and keep the app free — the only way. But I don't think so, even if you pay for the app, they will need excessive data to ensure you keep renewing.
I love that this post is pushing back on the norm. Maybe, just maybe, we can start a movement to make the web usable again. Or at least make “No, thanks” actually mean “No, thanks.”
That said, I built my first mobile app 15 years ago, and to this day, building for mobile remains the most frustrating part of my programming life.
In the Netherlands we have a system called DigiD to login into to most government websites like your taxes and city, etc.
When I contracted for the city of Amsterdam I learned they’ve been pushing hard for the DigiD app to two factor authenticate instead of text message, because of contracts Digid charges a lot per text message validation and none for app.
I would like to use only the browser, but unfortunately for some use cases it isn't really possible.
Engagement and real estate.
Keeping the users up to date is way easier with push notifications, especially with younger audiences who are less likely to read email.
And the app sits there on the Home Screen and advertises itself without having to do anything, while a web page relies on the user remembering its name and go there.
An ad show on a native mobile app pays between 5x to 10x more than the same ad in a webpage.
Advertiser's also get way more data from the mobile app than the data they can get from a webpage.
The company I work for makes 75% of their revenue from showing ads and they pushed very aggressively to install their app.
HN is a good example of an SSR web experience done right. How often do you hear members complaining about lack of official hacker news apps? I think the biggest reason is because the site is so simple and fast. There is zero jank to run away from. I can participate on the site just fine even if I'm on the edge of no signal in the desert. I don't need a fancy offline client side model. I need it to be tight enough to fit across a shitty pipe before it disappears.
UI/UX is one of the hardest things you can do, but when done well you can make it work in any medium. Native "feel" is not an excuse in my book. Safari feels pretty damn native to me right now.
Now in 2025 my biggest app-pain is being in the already useless live support chat for a phone co or utility company and they keep insisting that I'll get actual support if I download their stupid app. Again, they can't cite a reason - it's just "better." For data-brokering, sure - for the user, barely ever.
The better solution is do not use a phone. Using a phone requires using a mobile browser. One of the worst "apps" of them all. If it is Firefox, then one needs to block a ton of telemetry. It is constantly trying to determine if it can reach the internet and then trying to access "location.services.mozilla.org" amongst numerous other domains. Mozilla partners with Google. They share data.
Why leave out an incredibly egregious offender here in good old google? I'd been relatively on the fence google wise until they started consistently and repeatedly asking me to install their bullshit app. Why on earth would I ever want to install your app when all I want to do is run a fucking search query and leave you again?
If the site takes off, I think we will have to build a mobile app even though we don't want to. Non-tech users don't care about web.
As someone who pushed everyone I know to use Firefox with uBlock on Android, I am disappointed
But as someone who uses old.reddit.com on mobile, I am not surprised
1. Original iPhone aimed for that. No AppStore. But developers especially when web stack was poor, wanted native access. It did make sense back then to ideas like WhatsApp or some audio and video apps.
2. Then Apple understood they can get a cut if they operate the AppStore.
3. Then companies understood they can benefit from more data….
I’ve recently moved country and that’s real lame. Almost any supermarket or restaurant here wants me to become a “member” and enforce me to download their app (no web!). I’ve ended up creating another Apple account since those apps weren’t available in my origin country AppStore.
Most of those apps can pretty much be web apps (they actually are :) ) but insist of me downloading something with more data.
Also the entire tech industry is almost surviving on the promise of surveillance state and economy as if looked carefully there aren't that many success stories of the tech outside of the very obvious financial and automation industries. And that can serve only upto a certain level, but the hype of tech is way beyond that. To match that, they are desperate to break any law and all morals.
Also a glance at our own investment portfolio will tell us that it's our collective quest for wealth growth is the actual driving force of this 'everything financial' tech industry.
With the web, we have:
With apps, we have only what they give us.Apps are enshitification.
The (non-scientific) impression I have is that people don't tend to use porn apps, they stick with porn websites.
Therefore, do people basically know apps aren't well behaved with their data and yet in other scenarios they turn a blind eye?
And Facebook. I swear they intentionally make the website as bad as possible for mobile browsers. Explicitly disabled sending messages a few years ago. Do they really think someone who resisted their push to apps for 10+ years would submit one day?
https://progressivewebapp.store/
https://store.app/
https://www.pwa.com/
Bloated web apps with megabytes worth of JavaScript and CSS, crappy rendering performance, etc. are all too common. Far too many web apps are unusable or broken if you have any content/ad blockers enabled, which are almost a necessity in order to use the modern web.
Conversely, you download a native app once, and update it infrequently. Load times can be instantaneous. Offline support is far more robust.
To completely write off native apps just because some of those apps abuse the trust of users seems silly. Plenty of web apps have piles and piles of invasive ads and trackers as well.
I'd argue that a this task can be taken up by the mobile browser itself: i.e., to offer to install a shortcut icon that'll launch the page within an app container/sandbox. The common resistance to using website directly--and thus the preference to use the app, other than for performance reasons--stems from the inconvenience of typing and navigating on a small screen. If the browser helpfully offers to bypass that step (you've to do that at most once), a large number of apps would suddenly lose their pull.
1. Persistence: while websites are very easy to close, deleting an app is much more difficult and usually requires pressing on some “red buttons” and scary dialogs. It also makes sure the user now has a button for your app on their Home Screen which makes it a lot more accessible.
2. Notifications: while they exist for websites too, they are much less popular and turned off by default. Notifications are maybe the best way to get the user to use your app.
And while I hate the dark patterns some companies use (Meta, AliExpress, etc), I do understand why installing the app worth so much to them.
- when an app abuses data it doesn't need
- when it's slow or the app download size is too big
- when it has hostile user interface patterns: like forced upsells, forced ad interstitials
- poor security practices
I would just assume that a website is better for getting new users cus of the lower bar to entry, theres no install, a lot of peoples phones are full. Also you can go from QRcode or clicking 1 link directly to the app.
Whereas with an app, you have a link or QRcode that goes to the correct store, then install on the store, and then open.
I get that an app would be better for retention, as they could put the icon on their desktop (or whatever it's called) But I assume a site would be better for getting initial visitors cus of much lower barrier to entry.
I do. I also, without exception, read and make sure that I understand every single word of every piece of legalese that I’m presented with to agree to and/or sign. My wife sometimes jokes that she married me so that I could become her in-house attorney. I digress…
You should regularly review and reevaluate all of your devices’ configurations/settings from a privacy and security perspective (I do so at least once every two weeks).
Most of us over use (or are addicted to) our phones and especially to social media. Every barrier you can put in you way to prevent opening it is an improvement.
Opening safari and then having to type in the site name is a better barrier than just opening an app. Logging out every time is a barrier. Putting timers on websites through screen time is a barrier. All these tools help us fight against tech controlling us instead of us controlling the tech.
> Apps, on the other hand, are a different beast entirely.
Then the article mentions how it can collect user's location, contacts, etc. But some of those information can be tracked by linking the google tracker (and various other trackers) to the website visitor's identity. It's harder but it can still be done (privacy badger and other methods can help i think).
Specifically with offline first scenarios, you'll end up with lots of JS and client side shapes that need local persistence and sent back to server.
So while view transitions should be first consideration for always online apps such as ticketng system, price comparison, classified portals etc but they aren't probably that suitable for offline first scenarios that keep operating even in face of few days of Internet outage.
[ DOWNLOAD APP NOW ]
[continue with chrome like a scrub]
But now I get prompted to log in again and so I’d rather not take up the space for the app on my phone.
Uber Eats is 500MB and should be a web site only app. Etc etc
Even when the experience is otherwise basically identical, I've found that login sessions in a browser are sometimes measured in days, where in the app sessions never expire.
Which feels like app install metric juicing to me.
Although what sucks with websites is to always see the address bar and often having little to no settings nor notification support.
Until the early 2010s this wasn't the case and people were educating themselves on how to use websites properly.
If traffic laws can exist, then there must also be international app laws to educate people.
I have an iOS app that could easily be a PWA. I don't collect any data. My advertising budget is $0.
I would never be able to get anywhere near the amount of paid customers I have if I have offered the same service through a website instead.
Switching to a standalone app helps me avoid that — fewer distractions, less wasted time. I’ve tried breaking the habit, but this is one reason I still prefer desktop version of the website.
Most of websites I use regularly are simply not "optimized" for mobile: broken features, display errors, inadequate UI, just unusable on the phone. And it's intentional: they're sabotaging the mobile experience just to push you into downloading their app.
I have no option than using their f..g app.
Bank app: they use apps for increased security.
Map apps: of course they need your location. And wow it works way better than web based.
TikTok: in yeah they need access to audio to record audio. And wow the UI is smoother.
Games: don’t ask for anything. Except more money through in app payments.
Weather, uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart: needs location.
Streaming apps: actually sometimes need location to prevent you from streaming outside the jurisdiction. And it’s a better experience.
Lots of other apps: don’t ask for anything.
Does anyone let an app have access to their contacts? (Ok maybe just us nerds don’t)
So, no. It’s not usually about data. Sure, some of it is. But this is the wrong thread to pull on. It isn’t why they all force us to use apps.
The reason is that Apple has hampered the web experience to push everyone to apps. All of these problems are solvable with a web browsers, if it worked better. We have the technology. But Apple does not have an incentive to make the web work as well as apps. It destroys their revenue streams. They lose control. The problem is Apple, not all these apps that are trying to find their way in the walled Apple garden.
Of course this isn’t true for everything. But it is true enough. Why would they kill the golden goose?
Link: https://trackmonk.app
Having the app installed makes the initial load instant - big dopamine rush!
Seeing their logo on the home screen, before you even open your browser, means you might forget your big plan to search for alternatives. “Oh! Airbnb! I’ll just look there!”
Mobile apps are great, but it does not mean you need one
I don't get it at all, to me apps are sort of borderline comparable to having a stranger sleep in your closet, but it is what it is.
And companies love it.
This is it for reddit. They changed the Best sort to use general engagement metrics rather than upvotes (which are just one metric) back in 2021 [1], and this means that a lot of their metrics (time spent in comments, number of comments up/down voted, number of comments left on a post, etc.) benefit greatly from their app, which can track that with precision.
This is (IMO) responsible for reddit's degenerated current form, as it prioritizes gossip subs, AITA type Jerry Springer subs, etc., but that's a whole different conversation.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/o5tjcn/evolving_the_b...
The whole ecosystem is compromised. We need new protocols.
Collecting that data sounds creepy and nefarious, but if i think about what Experian and everyone else already knows about me, I don't know what information my phone's location would actually add that has enough value to build a massive telemetry engine.
But perhaps I am insufficiently paranoid.
What’s even more annoying lately is the whole “scan this QR code” or “click this button to open in-app browser” flow. You try to log in, get sent an email, and when you click the link, the session’s already gone in the in-app browser. It’s a mess.
So yeah… just use the web version. It’s simpler, more flexible, and honestly more reliable in most cases.
If you are one to carefully curate your contacts book to contain addresses, emails, birthdays for your own convenience and productivity, you have now provided a veritable goldmine of information for these companies to plunder, and betray the confidence of your acquaintances. I really despise this, and I've been looking for a solution but none thus far have seemed satisfactory.
I know of apps (at least on Android) like Bouncer and alternatives from F-Droid that can temporarily grant access to certain permissions like Location for a few minutes at a time, while giving the apps the illusion of full access.
However, save for using a Private Space or different user profile (both similarly require provisioning basically an extra instance of Google Play and everything) I haven't yet found a way to feed some sort of dummy contacts book to these greedy apps. If anyone knows of such a solution that is more convenient than setting up a new profile then please enlighten us.
I don't see anybody in the comments mentioning it.
The scheme is administered by Brighte. I signed up on their website. Everything going well for 6 months or so.
Then out of the blue, an email from them: "We just launched our app". Yeah, no, not interested.
A few weeks later, another "You should use our app, it's so convenient!". No, the website works fine. Can I unsubscribe from these notices? Customer service says no.
A few weeks after that: "Switch to our app. We are removing the website".
I email them to complain: I don't want or need their app, just let me use the website. No,they say, it's definitely being removed. I ask how people who don't want to or can't use their app are supposed to interact with them now? "you can always call us instead".
The idea of removing a perfectly functional website just to force everyone onto an app is insane.
I read news sites I pay for by scrolling through the home page and opening stories I want to read in new tabs, and then slowly reading and closing them throughout the day. Your app can't do that. Your app doesn't support tabs. It also doesn't support basic things like letting me zoom in on an image. And sometimes it crashes when I try to load comments.
I'm a paid subscriber, and I still get constant nagging every single day to use the app instead that is worse in every way.
And I don't even know why. They're just news sites. They don't ask for any permissions to slurp up my data. I honestly don't have the slightest idea why they keep pushing the app.
I think its just nature of ecosystem
However, it isn’t just greed. Native apps still have advantages the article glosses over: offline support, richer push‑notification APIs and OS‑level integration all contribute to better retention and engagement – the first HN commenter notes that their mobile traffic shifted to the app almost immediately after they released one, despite offering the same functionality on the web. Users also perceive mobile browsers as slow and bloated, which is partly because platform gatekeepers have dragged their feet on enabling powerful web features (service workers, better APIs) and have financial incentives to collect their 30% cut via app stores. Regulation like the EU’s Digital Markets Act may help level the playing field, but today the trade‑off is real: if you want privacy and control, stick with the website – just remember that websites can track you too.
lol downvoted but undisputed.
And 'privacy' is a horrible argument to prefer websites over apps. For the average person (not a privacy obsessed techie) - the web is just as bad if not worse from a privacy perspective than native apps.
I do agree that not everything needs an app - websites have their place. But when I go to browse HN on my phone, I don't do it through the web, I do it through Octal (which is open source).
Frankly I am tired of privacy-obsessed techies ruining tech for everyone else. Let's face it - 99% of the things you're worried about are simply going to let companies....show you ads that are more relevant to your life. The horror!
The one actual selling point a Microsoft Surface has over an iPad at this point is that you get to use real web browsers on it.
I have started to think this is the real reason why so many apps have a messaging and voice chat features, not so they can orifice this services to you, but so you'll grant the access so they can spy on you and sell it to advertisers.
I randomly decided to try my hand at pottery using clay I've dug up from my yard. Talked about this in person with a few people, but hadn't posted anywhere online about it. Suddenly, Amazon is suggesting pottery equipment and supplies to me.