Well, there is a lot that isn’t right about the “system” either, so that’s just my negligible rebellion against it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Universal I've Finally Had it with Apps
- Thread starter Sheepish-Lord
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Huh? Google is offering you a paid service. You either take it or leave it. You don't try to use the service whilst cheating them out of money that is rightfully theirs.
I don’t see it worse than “cheating” them out of money by using an ad blocker. I actually believe they miss out of much more from the latter. They still get my data with the subscription, which is bad enough.
That's not the same at all, but whatever - you've clearly justified it in your mind. I'll continue paying the amount that I legally owe them in my country, because that's how I would want others to do business with me if the shoe were on the other foot.
@sorgo You'd be 🙁 if you were in business charging $100 for your product and people found a way to cheat and get it for $10. Anyway, I read online where people are trying this and it's not working anymore, so that's good.
Last edited:
I am developing a complex gps/mapping web app that runs on all desktop and mobile platforms. It's free, there's no advertising, no registration and I'm not affiliated with any company or organization - it's just a personal project that I decided to share. Went this route because I just didn't want to deal with the whole approval process and expense of the Apple or Google app stores (not to mention the complexity of writing code for different platforms).
It's a shame that Apple has not embraced web apps more fully on iOS, Android has much more robust support. Windows also has full support with Edge, and other browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc.) also support them. But Safari on MacOS has no support at all.
You can accomplish pretty much the same things with an ordinary website, but there's one big difference - web apps have persistent data storage as opposed to websites where storage can be automatically purged by the browser. And Safari is especially aggressive about that, deleting website data after one week if you don't visit the site (or so I have read, but not personally confirmed). Web apps can also be installed on your home screen in iOS and run independently from Safari in full-screen mode without showing the browser interface. After installation, most users wouldn't realize they aren't regular iOS apps.
The interesting thing is, web apps were Steve Jobs original vision for the iPhone back in 2007:
"The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, they can send an email, they can look up a location on Google Maps. And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today. So developers, we think we’ve got a very sweet story for you. You can begin building your iPhone apps today."
Personally, I'd love to see Apple embrace this philosophy again. Doing so would go a long way towards addressing the whole "sideloading" issue.
Regardless, I'm still happy with the results I get with my web app. The main limitation is that they have no access to the device filesystem (which is, of course, necessary for security) so it's difficult (though not impossible) to work with large amounts of data. I've devoted a lot of effort to making my app scale well between mobile and desktop devices - which is a lot of work. Unfortunately, many developers don't do this very well which gives some people the impression that it isn't possible.
It's a shame that Apple has not embraced web apps more fully on iOS, Android has much more robust support. Windows also has full support with Edge, and other browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc.) also support them. But Safari on MacOS has no support at all.
You can accomplish pretty much the same things with an ordinary website, but there's one big difference - web apps have persistent data storage as opposed to websites where storage can be automatically purged by the browser. And Safari is especially aggressive about that, deleting website data after one week if you don't visit the site (or so I have read, but not personally confirmed). Web apps can also be installed on your home screen in iOS and run independently from Safari in full-screen mode without showing the browser interface. After installation, most users wouldn't realize they aren't regular iOS apps.
The interesting thing is, web apps were Steve Jobs original vision for the iPhone back in 2007:
"The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, they can send an email, they can look up a location on Google Maps. And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today. So developers, we think we’ve got a very sweet story for you. You can begin building your iPhone apps today."
Personally, I'd love to see Apple embrace this philosophy again. Doing so would go a long way towards addressing the whole "sideloading" issue.
Regardless, I'm still happy with the results I get with my web app. The main limitation is that they have no access to the device filesystem (which is, of course, necessary for security) so it's difficult (though not impossible) to work with large amounts of data. I've devoted a lot of effort to making my app scale well between mobile and desktop devices - which is a lot of work. Unfortunately, many developers don't do this very well which gives some people the impression that it isn't possible.
I actually get where you’re coming from. I would have argued similarly 10-15 years ago. But the world of big tech has become so f’cked up that I just don’t care anymore. If they provided services anywhere close to the features and UI I would like, I’d gladly pay $50 per month.
Yes I’ve been on a crusade against all the unnecessary apps for years. I dislike most companion apps, it’s 99 times out of 100 not needed and just a way to harvest data.
I bought a EcoFlow power station, being marketed with an app. Absolutely unnecessary. I can see one benefit, and that’s firmware upgrades. But how about releasing the power station with finished software instead? But that’s a whole other thread really.
I use quite few apps, usually around 50 total installed on my iPhone at any given time. And the EcoFlow app? Installed to update the firmware, then uninstalled. As I usually do. A power station should not ever have to have firmware upgrades to begin with.
I question all apps on my phone. Do I need it? Will it make my experience better by a considerable margin? If the answer is no, which it usually is, it’s a no go.
And yea, I’m that guy who leaves any restaurant where I have to begin my visit with installing an app. My wife is not happy when that happens. 😊😂
Absolutely. Of course there are various, limited, valid points on the side of “pay developers what is legally due,” but to characterize it as many do as this dramatic “you’re cheating…” phrases and mentality, ignores how unreasonable, egregious and ubiquitous the monthly subscription plague for payment for apps has become over past 5, 10+ years, and how it continues so unabated.
Apple themselves have their, here and there, historic good points to consumers re: “we don’t profit from, or sell, your data, we focus on making quality hardware, that making people’s lives better” —- yes you have and do, sometimes, and you also jumped full-on into the “services” sector the more you smelled the cash flow. So now people pay monthly fees for apple music, apple tv, etc. etc., on top of individual monthly app rentals, with no end in sight.
Last edited:
I agree, but never going to happen now that Apple knows how a walled garden can equal serious bank. With the App Store, they get to mould and direct people's interaction with their devices to create an endless secondary revenue stream. I wouldn't be surprised if some people end up spending more on apps and IAPs over the lifetime of the device than what the device itself cost. Genius! You don't even need to picture Apple as a bunch of moustache-twirling robber barons to see the appeal from their end, hoovering up their 15 or 30% percent. There's zero difference between Apple and its precious App Store, draped in all this language about its wholesomeness and safety, and Zuckerberg extolling the virtues of a "free" Facebook: Both go out of their way to sell it as the ultimate "gift" to users. It's a gift alright, but users have nothing to do with it.
Control of a web app lies entirely with its developer, including its potential for monetization. The thought of that must drive Apple completely mental.
Apple deserves every dollar they charge for their excellent hardware. Their ever-accelerating wish to turn every interaction with that hardware into something they deserve a cut of, however, is offensive. My interest in paying Apple even 1 cent more ends the moment after I click "buy" on Apple.com.
Last edited:
A good example of this: eBay
The website offers the complete functionality. The eBay app is ok but there are quite a few edge case features missing, especially for sellers.
Maybe I used the wrong word. I didn't like it because once you have the app any youtube video someone sent me would open with it. I didn't see a way to force it not to do that. Maybe that's user error. My family would send me some video that I didn't want to add to the algorithm because it's not something I would be interested in and didn't want similar videos added to my recommendations.
My question is what does it do better or different than YouTube in a web browser. For example my banking apps let me quickly check my accounts with Face ID and I don't have to deal with login pages like I would if I just went to the mobile browser. Facebook seems to have a better interface on the app but I think that's because they make the mobile site purposely terrible so you'll use the app. I couldn't find that improvement on the YouTube app but perhaps I need to try it again.
Regarding that particular point, what seems to work is to paste the link into the Safari address bar. It doesn’t redirect to the app then.
I'll have to check that out. I know there's a way to pause history in the app but that means I have to open the app, do that, watch the video and remember to unpause. If I mess any of that up I'm going to be drowned in gardening videos for the rest of my YouTube life 🤣
You could always tap and hold the YouTube links people send you to copy them and then paste them into Safari or whatever mobile browser you use. I couldn't care less about YouTube's video recommendations, so that's not an issue for me.
If you're a YouTube Premium subscriber, background play, downloading, and picture-in-picture don't work with YouTube on mobile browsers - only with the app (at least AFAIK). And I don't believe you can upload to YouTube using a mobile browser either.
The YouTube app can also be used for easy one-tap (no code to type) two-factor authentication when signing into Gmail, etc.
Oh yea I’m sure most of the big retail apps are missing a few things here and there, it seems inevitable.
I do use the eBay app though, because searches are a bit more touch-friendly and it feels cool being able to photograph and list stuff all from one device.
What are you trying to do with the PayPal app besides send/request/transfer money? Because it does those things pretty simply in my experience.
I feel like totally the opposite of the OP.
Apps are so much better, especially when they're native. They're on my home screen, they're fullscreen, they're blazing-fast, they're well integrated with the rest of the ecosystem. I don't see any reason to use the browser over an app, unless the app isn't supported anymore.
Apps are so much better, especially when they're native. They're on my home screen, they're fullscreen, they're blazing-fast, they're well integrated with the rest of the ecosystem. I don't see any reason to use the browser over an app, unless the app isn't supported anymore.
We do get ad revs for people using Premium. It’s broken out as a separate item.
Since self-checkouts are entirely implemented on the concept of lessening labour power and maximising the profits of multi-billion dollar, (usually) multi-national corporations that already grossly exploit labour for obscene levels of wealth generation that leads to great harms for literally billions of people…
…sure, why not? **** ‘em.
PRIVACY:
Companies want you to use their apps -- more tracking in them.
To avoid this, use Safari -- use a VPN, don't sign in, and use a clear browser (clear cache, cookies, etc). So, Safari with adblockers and content blockers, while on a VPN, not signed in, and constantly clearing cache and cookies.
SECURITY:
However, technically speaking, apps from the Apple AppStore are "safer" from a security standpoint than websites. Malicious JavaScript can easily be injected into a website and you won't necessarily know it. With apps, they're vetted before being published.
So pick whichever is more important to you. Oh yeah, in line 1 I mentioned companies want you to use their apps to track you. That's true. So they intentionally cripple the mobile webpages to get most people to say "**** it, I'm getting the app" etc.
Companies want you to use their apps -- more tracking in them.
To avoid this, use Safari -- use a VPN, don't sign in, and use a clear browser (clear cache, cookies, etc). So, Safari with adblockers and content blockers, while on a VPN, not signed in, and constantly clearing cache and cookies.
SECURITY:
However, technically speaking, apps from the Apple AppStore are "safer" from a security standpoint than websites. Malicious JavaScript can easily be injected into a website and you won't necessarily know it. With apps, they're vetted before being published.
So pick whichever is more important to you. Oh yeah, in line 1 I mentioned companies want you to use their apps to track you. That's true. So they intentionally cripple the mobile webpages to get most people to say "**** it, I'm getting the app" etc.