I recently decided to publish an app on the App Store just so I could say I accomplished that, and maybe even make a little bit of beer money on the side.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that my actual app is pretty much garbage. I don’t expect it to be popular. It’s basically a worse version of stuff that is already available.
I expected this to be a learning exercise about the process of getting stuff published.
Long story short, by the end of the ordeal I was somewhat surprised that anyone independent bothers to publish apps at all. The amount of red tape and nitpicking by the initial app review process is astounding. The business/legal side is also annoying. I might be misremembering or misinterpreting, but it seems like you really need an LLC with a mail forwarding service and a cheap second phone line just to avoid the App Store sending the whole internet to your personal phone and address.
On a website you can just not deal with any of that, and not give Apple $99/year just to keep your app on the store.
And we haven’t even gotten into the big royalties you’re paying for App Store purchases.
Still, I understand the appeal at some point, just not for an app like OP was forced to use. I certainly wouldn’t want to use something like Immich or Opencloud without an app: these apps need to deeply integrate with my phone to be truly useful.
criddell 1 hours ago [-]
As someone who uses apps, the hoops you have to jump through are one of the reasons I prefer apps. I'm glad Apple knows who you are and have scrutinized (to some degree) your app.
I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5.
ftchd 35 minutes ago [-]
Well...
Search right now in the App Store for "Morpho" and you'll find a "Morpho: Network" app. That app says it's some sort of TODO/Note taking app. It uses very broad language in the screenshots and assets from morpho.org (a decentralized protocol).
Once you open the app, it immediately downloads another bundle using OTA updates and shows an entirely different app where you "connect your wallet". You can imagine what happens next.
benoau 13 minutes ago [-]
> You can imagine what happens next.
Section 230 immunity baby!
afavour 26 minutes ago [-]
> I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5.
That's been the case with native apps for a long time now too.
benoau 35 minutes ago [-]
If they were actually doing a good job this would make sense.
Just weeks ago they published a sanctioned Russian bank's app masquerading as a pomedoro timer lmao.
essentia0 23 minutes ago [-]
And it's a long running practice, they've been at it for years now
al_borland 1 hours ago [-]
I periodically try to put something together. I don’t even care about publishing to the app store really, I mostly want to make stuff for myself for macOS.
My last attempt, it felt like Apple was no longer interested in the idea of hobbyist developers. The setup just to get the Xcode project setup felt like I needed to have a company and a website. When I selected something about iCloud, because I thought it would be nice if what I made synced to iCloud, I couldn’t even get started without paying $99, so I had to start again and choose a different option without it. And here I thought the $99 was just to publish to the store.
Considering how Apple started, this trend feels wrong. When I wanted to make a simple little app a few weeks ago, I ended up using python with webview. It seemed to be one of the few ways to make a little GUI app without boiling the ocean.
hbn 41 minutes ago [-]
> it seems like you really need an LLC with a mail forwarding service and a cheap second phone line just to avoid the App Store sending the whole internet to your personal phone and address
That's an EU thing. If you don't publish in the EU you don't need to dox yourself.
inigyou 26 minutes ago [-]
It's also a very general European mindset thing. They have a very different approach to privacy there - they basically expect everyone's identity to be public, and then protect those identities from abuse, rather than the more US approach of letting you hide your identity so it can't be abused. You see supermarkets with the owner's full name plastered across the storefront underneath the franchise logo. "This store is Edeka John Smith"
hbn 19 minutes ago [-]
A store is more reasonable to put your name on because generally if you want to meet the person running it you could just walk into it regardless of whether you know their name.
The internet has created a culture of deranged harassment that makes posting your identity online alongside anything you publish more insane than ever. And your market is more or less the entire world rather than your local community.
Izkata 31 minutes ago [-]
It's also in the US. A consumer protection law in California started it around a decade ago and Google applied it to everyone instead of letting us opt out of the state (it's why I let my Android app die), and since then they've also disallowed PO boxes.
inigyou 44 minutes ago [-]
It's like a lot of tech trajectories. At first it was fairly easy and people did it, and then both the producer, consumer, and platform evolved off in some direction in an endless feedback cycle, and now a newcomer sees the whole ecosystem is all the way over there in some weird place and doesn't join it because why would you want to be over there, but the existing actors don't see it as strange because they acclimatized to each step along the way.
Recently I tried out tiktok for a day and couldn't fathom why I would possibly want to ever use this app. Same with Instagram. But people who followed their trajectory since their earlier days find them normal.
Same with Facebook, actually. And Google.
On the other side of that equation, my very old YouTube account (which still has a subscription to "YouTube Red" that costs half of what a new subscription to YouTube Premium costs) has been trained to show me certain content, and if I joined with a new account or told someone else to join, I know the homepage would be filled with dumb slop.
2 hours ago [-]
Steve16384 1 hours ago [-]
Couldn't agree more. I've only published on Google Play, but the number of hoops Google makes you jump through (and keeps making you jump through if you want to keep your app in the store) is a full-time job in itself. New permission requirements, needing to self-decalre that your app does/doesn't do this or that, forcing you to reveal your personal details. The list goes on.
groundzeros2015 1 hours ago [-]
> I’ll be the first to admit that my actual app is pretty much garbage
It’s working. Your low quality project you weren’t really committed to got filtered.
r2_pilot 44 minutes ago [-]
Aside from the low-effort snark and lack of empathy towards someone's project, this is also how you filter people out of caring about software development at at a young age, and then who's going to keep the computer systems running?
inigyou 42 minutes ago [-]
Nobody cares about the future, only the present. America forgot how to manufacture things, too, because it was momentarily uneconomical and there was no concern about how to keep the living knowledge going.
kibwen 44 minutes ago [-]
Both Google's and Apple's app stores are 99% slop by volume, so no, it's not working.
inigyou 41 minutes ago [-]
It's professionally made slop, engineered precisely for maximum value extraction. This guy's app presumably didn't extract value successfully so they don't want it.
billyp-rva 2 hours ago [-]
> I can’t understand how we got to this place with “app culture”!
The short version: ad blockers work on browsers but not apps[0].
> I can’t understand how we got to this place with “app culture"
Thie assertion is extremely funny to me. Historically we come from an "app culture". Back in the day, around 2000 or so, if you wanted some functionality, you ran an application. You ran software in your computer.
Then on the early 2000s people started migrating their software web" , inventing "SaaS" (software as a service" .
I remember my young self being strongly opposed to that, because I saw little sense in constraining what you could do with a scripting language, when you could easily get the "networking" capabilities adding tcp/ip to your software .
But the web and Javascript won, mostly due to control (there was advertising in software since the 90s, for example Opera or GetRight had ad banners) .
The feature and mobile phones came and people started to migrate to "apps" again. So we came full circle.
master-lincoln 29 minutes ago [-]
It's because apple pushed towards apps and didn't want web apps on their phone. Likely due to the profits they can gain from appstore sales
Native apps would be the better platform in my eyes if the Operating Systems would be better in terms of letting a user manage what a native app have access to and can do.
But currently they are preferred by companies despite more dev effort because they can get more user data without the user having easy ways to prevent that. And of course showing ads without the user being easily able to block them
inigyou 24 minutes ago [-]
There's nothing technical stopping us from investigating and modifying the apps we install - at least on operating systems that allow you to install unapproved apps. YouTube Vanced only got in legal trouble for distributing a copyrighted work (the YouTube app) which led to ReVanced which is a patcher that doesn't include a copy of the original app.
ndriscoll 10 minutes ago [-]
OP is about information, not functionality. In the early 2000s you would put things like that on a web page, and you'd put e.g. chat in its own application like Gaim.
In the 2010s the model inverted: now you need to keep an entire browser open to use google chat, and people try to get you to install an app to read a web page.
Izkata 24 minutes ago [-]
Keep going further back, we had thin client terminals (not sure of the terminology, this was just before my time - I remember using them to look for books at our town library when I was a kid, green or orange text on a black screen, no mouse).
CuriouslyC 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think that's it. Apps took off because people felt comfortable yoloing stuff from the Apple app store, and for a short while before saturation, the app store reach was making small developers rich.
reddalo 2 hours ago [-]
Apps took off because Apple did everything they could to make PWAs work badly, with no reliable notifications, no access to some data, etc.
Apple did that because they want their sweet 30% from in-app purchases, which they couldn't enforce in PWAs.
imjonse 2 hours ago [-]
apps took off before browsers had the capabilities required for native-like behaviour (fast graphics, hw functionality, notifications) and then were used even for apps that could have been web-apps.
jghn 1 hours ago [-]
The problem is that for nearly all apps I want them to have neither notifications nor access to data. For instance, with few exceptions, the only apps I allow to give me notifications are the default apple apps, like iMessage.
The only reasons I'll use an app over a website is if I have no choice in the matter, or if the app provides an easier UI/UX than the website.
graemep 2 hours ago [-]
Apps also took off on Android and Google likes PWAs.
I am not sure about the history, but a lot of it now is about tracking, and perceived security. Its far harder for users to manage things like location tracking in apps than in browsers.
CuriouslyC 2 hours ago [-]
To be fair, apps took off before nice PWAs that masquerade as apps were a thing. The app store was already thriving to the point of oversaturation when the first versions of React were released.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
PWAs (progressive web apps) surely existed before React though
CuriouslyC 2 hours ago [-]
IIRC, the cutting edge of PWAs when the app store was taking off was Backbone.js, which I don't recall being pleasant enough to work with to want to make anything large in.
justarobert 1 hours ago [-]
I worked on converting an existing knockoutjs SPA into a PWA around that time. I won't claim it was a pleasant experience but it was probably a lot easier and quicker than a small team of webdevs learning mobile dev and cheaper than a new hire. It wasn't a small or basic app, but we did have the advantage of it being a B2B tool that would only be used on android tablets. IIRC it was going to be either extra work or maybe even impossible to get the same functionality on iOS/safari at the time so we just didn't.
crabmusket 1 hours ago [-]
React was open sourced in 2013. Service workers, which I consider to be essential to what we understand as PWAs, shipped first in Chrome in 2015, Safari in 2018.
jorisw 1 hours ago [-]
Sure. But Jobs was talking about running 'web apps' on iPhone OS as a software distribution channel, pre App Store, 2007-2008.
jazzypants 28 minutes ago [-]
I completely understand the confusion, but "Progressive Web App" or PWA[1], coined by Alex Russell and Frances Berriman[2], has become a specific term for websites that work normally on a pc but can also take advantage of things like push notifications and be installed on the home screen of a phone. You can see a measurable uptick on Google Trends after this blogpost [3].
yes, i am forced to to make a real app because storage is not reliable in PWA, browser or OS can wipe off data.
i don't want to pay for servers just to have an app.
and updating apps is slow, for flutter you need to pay for shorebird.
In react native land, not sure but there are paid stuff like expo? you can self host but usually you end up payign for some OTA provider?
al_borland 1 hours ago [-]
The original intent of the iPhone was not to have 3rd party apps at all. Web apps were how developers were supposed to deliver to iPhone users. At the time, web apps weren’t as good as they are today and the market demanded local apps. Jailbreaks happened quickly, delivery systems like Cydia were set up. Apple either had to deliver their own official methods or play a cat and mouse game with hackers while trying to gaslight the public that websites were better than local apps.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
The App Store took off because of the distribution channel it offers for developers (including being able to charge for the work) and the place of discovery it offers to users.
1970-01-01 57 minutes ago [-]
There was and is more than one App Store. You mention other good reasons to develop, but the money from ads was the biggest reason for an app to exist. Otherwise, it could and should just be a website.
afavour 21 minutes ago [-]
Nah. When the App Store started getting truly popular you couldn't even run an ad blocker on mobile Safari. That came many years later.
IMO the reason we got to this place is twofold:
- apps give companies a spot on your Home Screen and allow you to develop a habit of opening it. I suspect Apple are very aware of this, which is why they continue to make it very difficult to install a web app to your home screen.
- notifications. Which, again, draw a returning audience
maxgashkov 22 minutes ago [-]
Two more things:
- well-designed apps retain enough state to be useful offline or in places with spotty coverage; PWAs can kinda be made to work like this but IIRC iOS will happily evict them under disk pressure;
- notifications. I've read that Apple have implemented them for home screen installed web apps but for reasons unknown I have not seen this in action even once.
datakan 2 hours ago [-]
Apple has actually started allowing this. You can find the functionality in an adblocker called Wipr now and it works really well.
zamadatix 2 hours ago [-]
URL filters in iOS 26 just make network level filtering more convenient (can use a real VPN at the same time) but it's nothing new in terms of replacement for real ad blockers, which is why apps like Wipr still include a Safari extension.
inigyou 41 minutes ago [-]
There's also more data you can access from an app than from a browser. E.g. surrounding WiFi networks, battery level, persistent device identifier.
groundzeros2015 1 hours ago [-]
I think it’s that your install base represents real customers who could actually buy things.
Web traffic is so diluted and low signal.
xingped 1 hours ago [-]
It's too bad not enough people know about using adguard dns on their phones. Dunno about iPhones but it works wonders on Android. Only downside is it sometimes interferes with signing into public wifi networks.
For most app ads it's enough to set a DoT or DoH in the system that blocks ad domains. Android supports this with a settings menu entry, on Apple one needs a more "technical" solution I think (loading some XML?). Most VPN apps also support DNS enforcement.
Apps like YouTube are an exception, but there are other ways around that on Android.
datakan 3 hours ago [-]
We were supposed to be in the age of PWAs. That was the initial plan for iOS before the app store and 30% cuts on subscription apps.
Most web apps suck too though so I guess pick your poison. My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
doginasuit 2 hours ago [-]
> My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
That's it, an app installed on a mobile device is a much more effective attentional hook than a website that must be either bookmarked or remembered. It is like inviting a door-to-door salesman to your house, of course they will take the invitation.
z3c0 2 hours ago [-]
Also, analytics are not limited by JavaScript and browser APIs. Getting your attention isn't so valuable without knowing how to do it a second time.
brabel 3 hours ago [-]
> My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
I believe the same about the Youtube App, I just can't see why else it exists and I hate the video links try to open in the app if you're not careful!
smallpipe 2 hours ago [-]
Casting from the web doesn’t work (on iOS at least) but that’s all I can think of.
craftkiller 2 hours ago [-]
Chromecast from desktop chromium works, so there's no reason they couldn't make the universal turing machine in my pocket do the same.
reddalo 2 hours ago [-]
Desktop Chromium is Chrome. iOS Chrome is just Safari with a different interface.
Apple doesn't let other browsers use their own engine on iOS (unless you are located in the EU).
craftkiller 2 hours ago [-]
> iOS Chrome is just Safari with a different interface
uhh wow. How did Microsoft face antitrust lawsuits for merely bundling IE when Apple is literally forcing their browser?
Gander5739 2 hours ago [-]
Due to EU regulation, you can use a different browser engine in the EU (and I think Japan too), but thus far none have been developed (it's too much work to maintain two versions of the browser).
echoangle 2 hours ago [-]
AirPlay should work for every native video element, or do you mean something like chromecast?
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
YouTube obfuscates the native video by removing the controls.
Vinegar is a Safari extension that fixes that on iOS and macOS. May exist for other browsers as well.
jaffa2 2 hours ago [-]
uninstall the app. my life is much better since i uninstalled most apps and I just use the web pages these days. To take ONE benefit from not using the youtube app, and instead using a browser: I can open more than one video at once.
LoganDark 2 hours ago [-]
Apps are also more difficult to intercept and modify on most devices. Companies like them because it means you can't use ad blockers or other privacy tools. It's also why they flip out so outrageously when Apple adds privacy tools at the operating system level, because tracking and abuse are most of the reason why apps are useful to them in the first place.
ForHackernews 2 hours ago [-]
NewPipe mostly works except when Google breaks it.
dizhn 59 minutes ago [-]
There's nothing sinister there. Google is merely trying to break their own app in new user hostile ways and everything else breaking is collateral damage. :)
forlorn 2 hours ago [-]
They want apps so they could fingerprint your device, spy on you and get a lot more information than a web app.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Sure. They. They want. You know who they are, and what they want.
close04 2 hours ago [-]
No need to play games and intentionally be obtuse all across the thread. "They" are the developers. A website has far less access to a device than an app and ads are easier to block. So they wrap anything into an app to gain that access and make ad money.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
What access?
Like the OS native APIs that offer the very utility for these apps to even exist?
Integration with OS features is what made the app ecosystem, because of utility. Project whatever conspiracy on that you want.
NiloCK 2 hours ago [-]
> What access?
Push notifications.
> Integration with OS features is what made the app ecosystem, because of utility.
This is true of some apps, like the beer-drinking one that uses the accelerometer / other orientation sensors.
It's not true of a large number of other apps, hence the "your app could have been a webpage" charge. This is distinct from "every app could be a webpage".
> hence the "your app could have been a webpage" charge
No debate there. I was responding to the ever vague and broad "they want" comments.
close04 6 minutes ago [-]
> I was responding to
Responding but never answering to anything. You were asking a bunch of questions with obvious answers that you should have known or could have discovered yourself, but expected others to dig out and chew them for you. You even went to ridiculous lengths to pretend that apps only do things "because of utility" and everything else like data collection, tracking, ads, etc. is "conspiracy". That's negative value in a conversation.
close04 2 hours ago [-]
> Project whatever conspiracy on that you want
You think a developer making money from their app is a conspiracy? Or that apps track you and developers monetize that data is one?
I don't think you're being intentionally obtuse anymore.
mr_mitm 2 hours ago [-]
I'm currently attempting to write a calendar app for personal use, and I wanted to go the route of a self-host PWA. Notifications are a good point. How can I create notifications as a reminder before an event? Alerts are part of the icalendar standard ("VALARM"), so these are clearly notifications that are wanted by the user. Is that even possible for a PWA?
whstl 2 hours ago [-]
You can send notifications with PWAs with Web Push API + Service Worker, same as a regular page.
Looks like this is what I need and it doesn't exist. So the short answer is "no". Thanks for the link!
whstl 2 hours ago [-]
> While the app is awake, sure.
That's not true. The browser's push service wakes the service worker on delivery, even if the PWA is fully closed. That's the entire point of Push API vs polling.
2 hours ago [-]
harryf 1 hours ago [-]
We are in the age of PWAs. I've created a few where I just host them on Github pages (no backend needed, no hosting costs).
And the P in PWA has become "Personal" ... vibe coding apps with no backend for non-developers for their _personal_ needs e.g. a create a job hunting app for my son specific to the types of jobs he's looking for. If I update it, it updates on his phone plus he can sync to his laptop via WebRTC.
dec0dedab0de 2 hours ago [-]
sure, but that original idea was 20 years ago.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
> they want
Who are 'they' and how do you know what they want
pluralmonad 2 hours ago [-]
The people deciding between delivering their payload via app or web page. Engagement hacking is not something we have to guess that ad companies want.
Gander5739 2 hours ago [-]
The problem is, I tnink, that most people actually prefer apps over websites - even just a wrapper - for whatever reason.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Possible reasons:
- No waiting for a page to load
- Home screen access (most don't know about bookmarking web apps)
- Discovery (where do you go to find PWAs?)
- Features (native apps have access to more platform APIs)
- Absence of browser chrome (more immersive UX), though on iOS the chrome can be removed from PWAs once bookmarked, using meta tags
criddell 1 hours ago [-]
Those are all pretty good. Some other reasons:
- well written apps use less memory, battery, and bandwidth
- security: apps go through at least some review while a web app could change with every reload
- scripting: apps often expose more functionality to Apple Shortcuts
- accessibility: the system accessibility features seem to work better with apps
- UI/UX: the best native apps are always going to be more responsive and feel better than the best web apps
ashu1461 1 hours ago [-]
In most of the cases, web apps are also much slower as well and the UX is also sub par.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Ad companies now. Just one sentence earlier you said it's people 'delivering their payload'.
pluralmonad 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, ad (supported) companies are a large subset of the former. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Ad supported apps are not necessarily from ad companies.
The point I'm trying to make that these ever-prevalent 'they just want' remarks are superficial, uninformed, overly broad, and vague, to the point of having no point.
There are many benefits to native apps over web apps on mobile devices, depending on the use case. A conspiracy against the people need not be part of every developer's choice to utilize the native platform and associated app store for distribution.
I know there's lots of horrible companies out there (hi Meta!) who will drive you to their native apps just for performance of ads and 'engagement'. This doesn't justify the conspiracy thinking getting applied to native apps as a whole.
pluralmonad 1 hours ago [-]
Ad tech comes with a whole bundle of mal-incentives, like engagement hacking. If you are supported by ad revenue then your primary job is to get your users to look at ads. That's an ad company, for our purposes here.
pjc50 2 hours ago [-]
Specific example would be Reddit.
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Reddit, Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, sure.
All examples of first party social media clients.
A minority of native app developers, I'm willing to bet.
pjc50 2 hours ago [-]
Probably a statistical paradox where most developers aren't doing mass surveillance, but most app installs are, because the number of users for apps follows a power law distribution.
datakan 2 hours ago [-]
The developer of the apps obviously.
snapcaster 2 hours ago [-]
Why this gaslighting? obviously the massive companies with vested interest in monetizing your attention and data
jorisw 2 hours ago [-]
Nice and vague. Hard to dispute.
Simple fact is that people love to project evil incentives onto entities they don't even bother defining.
Not every native app developer is a 'massive company' with a 'vested interest' (what does that even mean) in monetizing your attention and data.
smcg 2 hours ago [-]
The fundamental problem with the internet is that hosting sucks and no one wants to do it. It's thankless and it's expensive to maintain, both time and money. Apps are a way to not worry about that.
By the way, the link doesn't load for me, so I used the archive to read it. https://archive.ph/ByFBN
inbx0 1 hours ago [-]
Simply hosting a front-end only app is almost free on several platforms (e.g. Cloudflare). Certainly less than the $99 Apple developer membership fee.
It starts getting more expensive once you add back-end servers and databases and whatnot, but you’d be needing those with the App-approach too if your featureset requires that.
anonzzzies 1 hours ago [-]
I love hosting and I will never stop doing it. I keep buying servers (second hand; almost no one actually needs the latest) and hosting 1000s of companies.
inigyou 22 minutes ago [-]
How did you get companies to sign up to your website business?
smcg 1 hours ago [-]
For every person like you there are thousands who don't want to host!
al_borland 57 minutes ago [-]
Not to mention dealing with authentication, securing user data, and opening yourself to being a target for hackers.
Shipping a local app eliminates a lot of those headaches.
vaylian 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Doctor_Fegg 2 hours ago [-]
> There only seem to be two things that this “app” does, that a webpage might not have, and they’re both anti-features:
> It reports tracking data associated with your Google Account back to the developers.
Fortunately webpages never do any tracking whatsoever, let alone “Gobshite LLC and its 1131 partners need your permission for (contd. p94)”
reddalo 2 hours ago [-]
Luckily tools such as uBlock Origin let you block all those nasty scripts, _including_ the cookie banner themselves.
inigyou 22 minutes ago [-]
I have uBO and I still see cookie banners.
2 hours ago [-]
gwbas1c 24 minutes ago [-]
> But at least I (and the rest of our group, whom I’ve shared it with) now get the choice about how we access this content.
What I want to know is: How many people actually used the website? How many people prefer the website?
It's easy to forget that many people use their computers (and phones) differently than the typical HNer.
Also: I wonder how easy/hard it is to do this with an LLM / vibecoding? Seems like there could be a Napster moment for bad apps where the LLM installs the app in a sandbox and makes educated guesses about how to turn it into a simple website.
mcdonje 2 hours ago [-]
I wish PWAs took off, or a "desktop" environment for phones and tablets that allows me to save a simple website shortcut as an app.
I want my phone to be the portal to the places I want to go to and the things I want to see. I want to have the same experience going to a web app or website I regularly visit as with a normal app.
Like, I want to click on an icon and be there. I don't want to click on the browser and then find the tab.
Also, I want PWAs and website shortcuts to be first class citizens. I want a normal icon, not one that has some sort of visual marker that it's not a normal app.
It's been an ongoing annoyance, but it's getting to be more commonplace of an issue because there are a lot of people building cool things on atproto, and they generally start as a web app before they maybe build a phone app.
stavros 21 minutes ago [-]
You can already do this, browser allow you to add a website as an icon and it acts completely like an app. Even iOS allows this, try adding HN to your home screen.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 2 hours ago [-]
I prefer native apps over web apps, but I’m honestly at the point now where I just want to make voice or chat commands and get an output, instead of learning some self-important UI/UX person’s custom UI controls aka “””design system”””
Hard_Space 3 hours ago [-]
I understand the anger. But I wish I were better able to resist fixing the world with code in this way, as I really am supposed to be working.
ed_mercer 3 hours ago [-]
This is awesome. I think the much bigger use case here is building web equivalents of apps that are only available on iOS/Android.
pdnagilum 2 hours ago [-]
Wait, the users password is part of the URL? What happens if the password contains a forward slash or a question mark? Wouldn't that break the whole endpoint?
Dan-Q 2 hours ago [-]
Original author here. Upon inspection, these passwords are clearly not chosen by the user and, as far as I can tell, consist only of numbers and uppercase letters.
lstodd 2 hours ago [-]
RFC 1738 Uniform Resource Locators (URL) December 1994 section 2.2
maelito 46 minutes ago [-]
Of course it should have been a Webpage. You can even code a whole modern map application on the Web, that's under 3 Mo gzipped, instead of the 600 Mo Java applications that we're served.
Dwedit 25 minutes ago [-]
A webpage cannot harvest your personal data in ways that an app can.
mohammedmsgm 2 hours ago [-]
I think yeah, most apps can be webpages, but the biggest used apps can also be webpages, (insta, facebook, x) and so on , I think the only real indicator is how much people are using the apps, not if it's simpler just to do a webpage
ChrisMarshallNY 1 hours ago [-]
If that's the case, then I agree. Lots of crapplets should be Web pages (for example, almost every corporate app).
However, there's a lot of stuff that does, indeed, require a native app.
That's the stuff I like to do. Doesn't really scale to Web pages.
pjmlp 2 hours ago [-]
I keep telling that outside games, most apps could be done as plain mobile Web, emphasis on mobile Web, not the PWA kludge of workers and what not.
carlosjobim 10 minutes ago [-]
The question is: Why would anybody prefer a web-app over a native app in any kind of system or on any kind of device?
I think the answer is "only when there is no native app for the system I use", ie Linux.
So FOSS people want for apps to become much worse for everybody else, so that they can have the apps also through a web browser. Remembering that everybody else is who pays for the apps and all development, while FOSS people will never pay a dime to software developers.
wsdn 2 hours ago [-]
If a 120MB app is required just to display an itinerary PDF, that's an architecture problem, not a UX problem.
catapart 2 hours ago [-]
Fantastic work! It's always nice to see the method, in case anything is out there making this stuff easier. But the result is the real prize. There's way too much nonsense out there that is an app when it should be a webpage. I'm so tired of all of these apps.
One criticism, though: I wish you would have made a simple form-based alternative to the app's population mechanism, rather than just make the one-off consumer for yourself(/those you shared with). Definitely way more work and not something you should have to do. But that would have been a cherry on top. Not only prevent needing the app for viewing, but also removing future incentive for an organization turning to an app like that in the first place.
Dan-Q 2 hours ago [-]
I'm the original author (but not the poster here on HN).
Yeah, I considered that. I even wrote the code in such a way that it supports that. But I'm concerned about the legality of distributing it. Given that it hits API endpoints that were expected to be private to the developers' app, giving away a "tool" that bypasses the app (which hosts ads, albeit for their other products, and so serves as a money-maker for the app's owner) could be illegal.
At the very least, it could be a violation of the terms of service or just an annoyance to the app developer, either of which could lead them to trying to stop me from doing it, which would be an inconvenience. So maybe I'll wait until after the trip, when the page becomes useless to me, and THEN open-source it!
catapart 20 minutes ago [-]
Hey, thanks for the follow up! That makes perfect sense to me. Personally, though, I was thinking more of a "competing service" than a "steal your content" kind of offering.
I know hosting an entire sign up process and user content is not something you can just build and forget about, so my thought was that a sufficiently decent website could bundle a package that could be hosted on existing organization infrastructure. A zip file of the user's content that they could upload to dropbox/drive/sharepoint/etc. Then the consumer page would match a url slug to a package file and serve the content that way.
It's... a lot of stuff for a quick workaround project. And it's a pathology of an engineer to make solutions where solutions aren't needed. So grain of salt on any of that. But I did want to clarify since you were willing to engage with the concept, as understood. Hopefully this proposition strikes you as less concerning/illegal! I never want to steal anyone's work or infrastructure. I just believe that better alternatives - even ones borne of seeing how badly other people are doing it - can and should win out, if people ever provide them.
DrammBA 23 minutes ago [-]
I wanted to ask, why did you go with reverse-engineering using network traffic instead of decompiling the app locally and looking for endpoint definitions?
2 hours ago [-]
me_vinayakakv 2 hours ago [-]
Why they would have password in the URL?!
deadbabe 1 hours ago [-]
The reason people want an 'App' instead of a website is purely marketing related. Apps are sexy and native, and have better distribution. Websites are old, crappy things where you can't always control exactly what the user is going to see very well, and sharing a slick URL isn't always easy.
llm_nerd 39 minutes ago [-]
By "marketing" do you mean "experience"? Because absolutely no one is marketing apps as being superior, but instead this is just the experience of users.
There's a weird conspiratorial thing that people do about this whole topic that is so easily debunked. For instance "Apple wanted apps more than PWAs!". Android powers about 73% of the world's smartphones, yet PWAs are irrelevant on the platform.
Web apps can be incredibly powerful, but there's just a massively lower bar in the web app domain, historically. Like people are used to the website being dogshit, a mishmash of broken functionality, terrible layout quirks, slow responsiveness, and so on. Because that is generally acceptable to the web community, where it is deadly to an app.
Like I think it's hilariously ironic that the website telling us that the app could have been a website is currently completely broken, unable to handle a relatively tiny amount of traffic.
mrcrm9494 2 hours ago [-]
does not load for me
creaturemachine 55 minutes ago [-]
Maybe it should've been an app after all.
cainxinth 3 hours ago [-]
Preach!
Eleg007 2 hours ago [-]
Love this
viaredux 2 hours ago [-]
Amazing. Love the dedication to fix this minor annoyance, which I also share. Would be great if there was a kind of universal tool for this, as I am sure many of those shitty apps share the same internals.
Rendered at 14:03:50 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that my actual app is pretty much garbage. I don’t expect it to be popular. It’s basically a worse version of stuff that is already available.
I expected this to be a learning exercise about the process of getting stuff published.
Long story short, by the end of the ordeal I was somewhat surprised that anyone independent bothers to publish apps at all. The amount of red tape and nitpicking by the initial app review process is astounding. The business/legal side is also annoying. I might be misremembering or misinterpreting, but it seems like you really need an LLC with a mail forwarding service and a cheap second phone line just to avoid the App Store sending the whole internet to your personal phone and address.
On a website you can just not deal with any of that, and not give Apple $99/year just to keep your app on the store.
And we haven’t even gotten into the big royalties you’re paying for App Store purchases.
Still, I understand the appeal at some point, just not for an app like OP was forced to use. I certainly wouldn’t want to use something like Immich or Opencloud without an app: these apps need to deeply integrate with my phone to be truly useful.
I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5.
Search right now in the App Store for "Morpho" and you'll find a "Morpho: Network" app. That app says it's some sort of TODO/Note taking app. It uses very broad language in the screenshots and assets from morpho.org (a decentralized protocol).
Once you open the app, it immediately downloads another bundle using OTA updates and shows an entirely different app where you "connect your wallet". You can imagine what happens next.
Section 230 immunity baby!
That's been the case with native apps for a long time now too.
Just weeks ago they published a sanctioned Russian bank's app masquerading as a pomedoro timer lmao.
My last attempt, it felt like Apple was no longer interested in the idea of hobbyist developers. The setup just to get the Xcode project setup felt like I needed to have a company and a website. When I selected something about iCloud, because I thought it would be nice if what I made synced to iCloud, I couldn’t even get started without paying $99, so I had to start again and choose a different option without it. And here I thought the $99 was just to publish to the store.
Considering how Apple started, this trend feels wrong. When I wanted to make a simple little app a few weeks ago, I ended up using python with webview. It seemed to be one of the few ways to make a little GUI app without boiling the ocean.
That's an EU thing. If you don't publish in the EU you don't need to dox yourself.
The internet has created a culture of deranged harassment that makes posting your identity online alongside anything you publish more insane than ever. And your market is more or less the entire world rather than your local community.
Recently I tried out tiktok for a day and couldn't fathom why I would possibly want to ever use this app. Same with Instagram. But people who followed their trajectory since their earlier days find them normal.
Same with Facebook, actually. And Google.
On the other side of that equation, my very old YouTube account (which still has a subscription to "YouTube Red" that costs half of what a new subscription to YouTube Premium costs) has been trained to show me certain content, and if I joined with a new account or told someone else to join, I know the homepage would be filled with dumb slop.
It’s working. Your low quality project you weren’t really committed to got filtered.
The short version: ad blockers work on browsers but not apps[0].
[0] https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle
Thie assertion is extremely funny to me. Historically we come from an "app culture". Back in the day, around 2000 or so, if you wanted some functionality, you ran an application. You ran software in your computer.
Then on the early 2000s people started migrating their software web" , inventing "SaaS" (software as a service" .
I remember my young self being strongly opposed to that, because I saw little sense in constraining what you could do with a scripting language, when you could easily get the "networking" capabilities adding tcp/ip to your software .
But the web and Javascript won, mostly due to control (there was advertising in software since the 90s, for example Opera or GetRight had ad banners) .
The feature and mobile phones came and people started to migrate to "apps" again. So we came full circle.
Native apps would be the better platform in my eyes if the Operating Systems would be better in terms of letting a user manage what a native app have access to and can do.
But currently they are preferred by companies despite more dev effort because they can get more user data without the user having easy ways to prevent that. And of course showing ads without the user being easily able to block them
In the 2010s the model inverted: now you need to keep an entire browser open to use google chat, and people try to get you to install an app to read a web page.
Apple did that because they want their sweet 30% from in-app purchases, which they couldn't enforce in PWAs.
The only reasons I'll use an app over a website is if I have no choice in the matter, or if the app provides an easier UI/UX than the website.
I am not sure about the history, but a lot of it now is about tracking, and perceived security. Its far harder for users to manage things like location tracking in apps than in browsers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app
[2] https://infrequently.org/2015/06/progressive-apps-escaping-t...
[3] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11bzxympx6...
i don't want to pay for servers just to have an app.
and updating apps is slow, for flutter you need to pay for shorebird.
In react native land, not sure but there are paid stuff like expo? you can self host but usually you end up payign for some OTA provider?
IMO the reason we got to this place is twofold:
- apps give companies a spot on your Home Screen and allow you to develop a habit of opening it. I suspect Apple are very aware of this, which is why they continue to make it very difficult to install a web app to your home screen.
- notifications. Which, again, draw a returning audience
- well-designed apps retain enough state to be useful offline or in places with spotty coverage; PWAs can kinda be made to work like this but IIRC iOS will happily evict them under disk pressure; - notifications. I've read that Apple have implemented them for home screen installed web apps but for reasons unknown I have not seen this in action even once.
Web traffic is so diluted and low signal.
Apps like YouTube are an exception, but there are other ways around that on Android.
Most web apps suck too though so I guess pick your poison. My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
That's it, an app installed on a mobile device is a much more effective attentional hook than a website that must be either bookmarked or remembered. It is like inviting a door-to-door salesman to your house, of course they will take the invitation.
I believe the same about the Youtube App, I just can't see why else it exists and I hate the video links try to open in the app if you're not careful!
Apple doesn't let other browsers use their own engine on iOS (unless you are located in the EU).
uhh wow. How did Microsoft face antitrust lawsuits for merely bundling IE when Apple is literally forcing their browser?
Vinegar is a Safari extension that fixes that on iOS and macOS. May exist for other browsers as well.
Like the OS native APIs that offer the very utility for these apps to even exist?
Integration with OS features is what made the app ecosystem, because of utility. Project whatever conspiracy on that you want.
Push notifications.
> Integration with OS features is what made the app ecosystem, because of utility.
This is true of some apps, like the beer-drinking one that uses the accelerometer / other orientation sensors.
It's not true of a large number of other apps, hence the "your app could have been a webpage" charge. This is distinct from "every app could be a webpage".
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API
> hence the "your app could have been a webpage" charge
No debate there. I was responding to the ever vague and broad "they want" comments.
Responding but never answering to anything. You were asking a bunch of questions with obvious answers that you should have known or could have discovered yourself, but expected others to dig out and chew them for you. You even went to ridiculous lengths to pretend that apps only do things "because of utility" and everything else like data collection, tracking, ads, etc. is "conspiracy". That's negative value in a conversation.
You think a developer making money from their app is a conspiracy? Or that apps track you and developers monetize that data is one?
I don't think you're being intentionally obtuse anymore.
But, AFAIK, you need the server for push, though. It used to be possible to program entirely from the client with this proposed feature but AFAIK it's abandoned: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/developer.chrome.com//blob/m...
While the app is awake, sure.
I'd like notifications to work even if the OS backgrounded the app, and even without a network connection, like I'd expect a reminder to work.
> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/developer.chrome.com//blob/m...
Looks like this is what I need and it doesn't exist. So the short answer is "no". Thanks for the link!
That's not true. The browser's push service wakes the service worker on delivery, even if the PWA is fully closed. That's the entire point of Push API vs polling.
And the P in PWA has become "Personal" ... vibe coding apps with no backend for non-developers for their _personal_ needs e.g. a create a job hunting app for my son specific to the types of jobs he's looking for. If I update it, it updates on his phone plus he can sync to his laptop via WebRTC.
Who are 'they' and how do you know what they want
- No waiting for a page to load
- Home screen access (most don't know about bookmarking web apps)
- Discovery (where do you go to find PWAs?)
- Features (native apps have access to more platform APIs)
- Absence of browser chrome (more immersive UX), though on iOS the chrome can be removed from PWAs once bookmarked, using meta tags
- well written apps use less memory, battery, and bandwidth
- security: apps go through at least some review while a web app could change with every reload
- scripting: apps often expose more functionality to Apple Shortcuts
- accessibility: the system accessibility features seem to work better with apps
- UI/UX: the best native apps are always going to be more responsive and feel better than the best web apps
The point I'm trying to make that these ever-prevalent 'they just want' remarks are superficial, uninformed, overly broad, and vague, to the point of having no point.
There are many benefits to native apps over web apps on mobile devices, depending on the use case. A conspiracy against the people need not be part of every developer's choice to utilize the native platform and associated app store for distribution.
I know there's lots of horrible companies out there (hi Meta!) who will drive you to their native apps just for performance of ads and 'engagement'. This doesn't justify the conspiracy thinking getting applied to native apps as a whole.
All examples of first party social media clients.
A minority of native app developers, I'm willing to bet.
Simple fact is that people love to project evil incentives onto entities they don't even bother defining.
Not every native app developer is a 'massive company' with a 'vested interest' (what does that even mean) in monetizing your attention and data.
By the way, the link doesn't load for me, so I used the archive to read it. https://archive.ph/ByFBN
Shipping a local app eliminates a lot of those headaches.
> It reports tracking data associated with your Google Account back to the developers.
Fortunately webpages never do any tracking whatsoever, let alone “Gobshite LLC and its 1131 partners need your permission for (contd. p94)”
What I want to know is: How many people actually used the website? How many people prefer the website?
It's easy to forget that many people use their computers (and phones) differently than the typical HNer.
Also: I wonder how easy/hard it is to do this with an LLM / vibecoding? Seems like there could be a Napster moment for bad apps where the LLM installs the app in a sandbox and makes educated guesses about how to turn it into a simple website.
I want my phone to be the portal to the places I want to go to and the things I want to see. I want to have the same experience going to a web app or website I regularly visit as with a normal app.
Like, I want to click on an icon and be there. I don't want to click on the browser and then find the tab.
Also, I want PWAs and website shortcuts to be first class citizens. I want a normal icon, not one that has some sort of visual marker that it's not a normal app.
It's been an ongoing annoyance, but it's getting to be more commonplace of an issue because there are a lot of people building cool things on atproto, and they generally start as a web app before they maybe build a phone app.
However, there's a lot of stuff that does, indeed, require a native app.
That's the stuff I like to do. Doesn't really scale to Web pages.
I think the answer is "only when there is no native app for the system I use", ie Linux.
So FOSS people want for apps to become much worse for everybody else, so that they can have the apps also through a web browser. Remembering that everybody else is who pays for the apps and all development, while FOSS people will never pay a dime to software developers.
One criticism, though: I wish you would have made a simple form-based alternative to the app's population mechanism, rather than just make the one-off consumer for yourself(/those you shared with). Definitely way more work and not something you should have to do. But that would have been a cherry on top. Not only prevent needing the app for viewing, but also removing future incentive for an organization turning to an app like that in the first place.
Yeah, I considered that. I even wrote the code in such a way that it supports that. But I'm concerned about the legality of distributing it. Given that it hits API endpoints that were expected to be private to the developers' app, giving away a "tool" that bypasses the app (which hosts ads, albeit for their other products, and so serves as a money-maker for the app's owner) could be illegal.
At the very least, it could be a violation of the terms of service or just an annoyance to the app developer, either of which could lead them to trying to stop me from doing it, which would be an inconvenience. So maybe I'll wait until after the trip, when the page becomes useless to me, and THEN open-source it!
I know hosting an entire sign up process and user content is not something you can just build and forget about, so my thought was that a sufficiently decent website could bundle a package that could be hosted on existing organization infrastructure. A zip file of the user's content that they could upload to dropbox/drive/sharepoint/etc. Then the consumer page would match a url slug to a package file and serve the content that way.
It's... a lot of stuff for a quick workaround project. And it's a pathology of an engineer to make solutions where solutions aren't needed. So grain of salt on any of that. But I did want to clarify since you were willing to engage with the concept, as understood. Hopefully this proposition strikes you as less concerning/illegal! I never want to steal anyone's work or infrastructure. I just believe that better alternatives - even ones borne of seeing how badly other people are doing it - can and should win out, if people ever provide them.
There's a weird conspiratorial thing that people do about this whole topic that is so easily debunked. For instance "Apple wanted apps more than PWAs!". Android powers about 73% of the world's smartphones, yet PWAs are irrelevant on the platform.
Web apps can be incredibly powerful, but there's just a massively lower bar in the web app domain, historically. Like people are used to the website being dogshit, a mishmash of broken functionality, terrible layout quirks, slow responsiveness, and so on. Because that is generally acceptable to the web community, where it is deadly to an app.
Like I think it's hilariously ironic that the website telling us that the app could have been a website is currently completely broken, unable to handle a relatively tiny amount of traffic.