This statement nails the problem that all of us suffer from. It’s like people have to add “feature” to make their site compelling because the information on it is not good enough.
Unfortunately, I don't think there'd be enough takers to make it a viable product.
Information for free, without ads is tough to do.
But the goal usually isn’t to let you read an article.
Often the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription. Apps can be good for all that.
You are correct here: the goal is to get you to read another article, click an ad, sign up for a newsletter, or buy a subscription
But I think that contradicts the idea users get a lot of value from JS.
You are correct, and
But because we're not neanderthals, you can also whitelist the sites/apps you like to run JS (in Chrome) and/or use another browser for your JS-powered sites/apps.
That said the modern web is generally very broken with js off, but it does get rid of most cookie banners, modal email sign ups prompts and generally lets your read article number 6 of the 5 free ones.
No arguments there.
> Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised.
I don't agree with the "should" here at all. Lots of the stuff is done on the client these days which could be done cheaper on the server. If I'm visiting a site that's developed as an application then I fully expect to running a bunch of JS, no qualms there. But there is no reason my phone should be forced to build a bunch of HTML just so I can read an article, and that's the problem: people are developing information sites as "apps". This is a large factor of why my phone can't hold a charge for a full day.