Seriously. I don’t want to install something on my phone when the dev is just using a WebView, if that’s what it’s called. When the app is basically just a website with the browser hidden.

What’s the reason for that? To attach the customer? To sell the app for money? Is there more ad revenue that way? Do you reach more people?

(Are there any good reasons for it, too? Security, maybe?)

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    So they can make your phone go bingedybeep and show you more adverts, while slurping up any data the browser doesn’t usually let them access.

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    10 months ago

    If they have an app they can gather far more personal data from you (and your device) that they can then turn around and sell

    • BOFH666@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 months ago

      This exactly. Just ask for some location rights in the app and get access to wifi also.

      Most users don’t mind giving an app a large amount of access and in doing so, a lot of personal information gets exposed.

      If you have a choice, use a website.

  • Jezebelley3D@kbin.social
    0·
    10 months ago

    This is why I love kbin. No nonsense apps just a PWA that works splendidly. Now I don’t need a mastodon or lemmy app! It’s all here!

  • indigomirage@lemmy.ca
    0·
    10 months ago

    I’m torn - apps are brutal for privacy but I really like the isolation from browser and all other sites. I typically clear browser cache on every exit so for apps that I use regularly, I am forced to sign in every time if going in through browser.

    Wish browser apps had better isolation for multiple sessions.

  • ByteWelder@lemmy.ml
    0·
    10 months ago

    Besides the other mentioned reasons: exposure through the app store can be a motivator too.

  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Some people are missing the forest for the trees here

    Having a businesses app on your phone is better regular advertising than anything they could ever pay for.

    They just want an excuse to make you look at their logo and think about their business as regularly as possible

  • arquebus_x@kbin.social
    0·
    10 months ago

    I’m sure there are some “data harvesting” reasons, but honestly, the simplest is likely the truest:

    Most people aren’t computer-savvy, and having an app is much easier for most users than going to a website (either directly or through a bookmark that they probably won’t ever be able to find again).

    One must remember, always and forever: most people aren’t us/you. Just because something is easy for you to do doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone else.

    Is it dumb for me that T-Mobile has an app that just goes to a webview that I could get through my phone browser? Yes. Is it dumb for my parents? Absolutely ten thousand percent no.

    The value (in terms of money made/saved/protected) that a company gets from having an app instead of a website only is probably ranked in this order:

    1 - ease of use for the majority of customers, reducing tech and customer support calls, angry customers, lost goodwill, bad reputation
    2-99 - same as #1
    100 - data harvesting

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    0·
    10 months ago

    I want apps to be apps again.

    On my desktop I have browser tabs for WhatsApp, messenger, Skype, gMailChatTalkHangouts and slack. I know slack’s app was ass but I miss the rest.

    I want a discrete app that doesn’t crash with chrome and which sits in my tooltray so I don’t have to fucking search for it whenever something makes a noise (ctrl-alt-a). I want to see it from the blink in the corner and not by scanning 31 windows of 7 groups of 12 tabs each.

    Often times I just give up and hope it also makes my phone spork too so I can grab it there.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      10 months ago

      Progressive Web Apps were supposed to marry these schools of thought, but maybe we hoped for too much because it’s still garbage Chromium under the hood.

      Just make everything for maximum interoperability I guess? I recently saw and forgot the name of a system for creating and displaying Github-like pull requests and associated discussions that are sent in via email. A very simple web interface displaying plain-text that could reasonably have been extended any way you like. I am beginning to see the appeal of the plain-text revolution.

  • Java the Hutt@programming.dev
    0·
    10 months ago

    I would say in some cases, people are conditioned now to expect an app, even if it’s basically a website. I think in a mobile context, most non-techy people don’t normally think to open up a browser and say, browse Amazon or something. Instead they go for the Amazon app on their phone, and browse/shop/whatever there.

    I wouldn’t say this is exclusive to phones either. I once worked on a product that was essentially web-native, but they had to ship a desktop app because their market expected it, even though it was only a web-view wrapper to the website. No offline storage, no difference in behaviour, or need for some specific API; nothing. I guess you try explaining to boomers that a web-view desktop app is unnecessary.

    The data vacuuming and additional marketing are just added benefits for the app developer, if they go down that path (they usually do).

  • Shortstack@reddthat.com
    0·
    10 months ago

    I always assumed the reason was to get more tendrils into your phone for that sweet sweet data $$$ and allowing themselves more control over shoving notifications in your face.

    Do I sound bitter?

  • AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    We had a project once that ran completely fine as a website except for the ability to scan bar codes. That one thing forced us to create an app and the rest of the app was just showing the website.