alt Hacker News> than 100 different apps
Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser? The web is nice for loading websites, obviously you shouldn't have to install one app per website. But anything more complex than a website should be a program you install.
> hostile to the idea of installing an application
When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use". If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
> isn't economical
Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
> Google also doesn't own the web contrary to popular belief (Even if they have an outsized amount of influence).
Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
Replies
> Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser?
Yes. My tab count regularly exceeds 100.
> If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
You're confusing volume of applications with time spent on applications. These users have 2-3 tasks they're willing to download and install an app for, but chances are you will never develop an app billions of users will have open for most of the day, and most users don't want to download an app to do things outside of Instagram, TikTok etc.
> Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
Invisible hand of the free market tends to take care of that. And I say that as someone who leans liberal progressive when it comes to economic policies. I doubt the 1.0 versions of many "hand-crafted" apps would hold up to today's standards either.
I really don't understand how some people think it's possible to craft a "perfect" version 1.0 of anything and then release it out into the wild with 0 problems. This was an issue BEFORE vibe coding. Does anyone here remember the first release of Cyberpunk 2077? Software doesn't magically improve by itself, it has to run into real world friction and feedback from users to get anywhere. Even if that feedback is just "this app is vibe-coded slop".
> Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
Yes. "Chaos is a ladder". Instead of bemoaning the state of the internet, it's more productive to find opportunities in the current chaos.
> Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
I would if those apps didn't intentionally make the web version worse than the app. There was a small amount of time where TikTok was under scrutiny from the US government and not available for download. Somehow, during that time the website worked just fine, but once the deals were signed and the app was available for download again, somehow the app became too complex to work on the web. Funny how that works.
> When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use".
The big distinction is security policy. There is a tremendous amount of things you can do in the browser that you cannot do on the desktop if you do not own the computer.