The reality is, most webapps for mobile just suck. The UX is nowhere near that of a native application. I don't want any text to be selectable. I don't want pull to refresh on every page. I don't want the left-swipe to take me to the previous page.

You can probably find workarounds for all these issues. The new Silk library (https://silkhq.co/) is the first case I've seen that get's very close to a native experience. But even the fact that this is a paid library comes to show how non-trivial this is.

- text is selectable

- content is zoomable

- you can have an ad/nuisance blocker

- page source is open

While native apps have their own advantages:

- much smoother experience esp. navigation, scrolling, animations, etc.

- better overall performance (JavaScript will always lose to the native binary)

- access to hardware opens new possibilities; audio, video accelerators etc.; there's a ton of things you can't do in the browser with audio for example

- widgets, some of them are nice and useful too

- for publishers: an app icon on the home screen is a reminder, a "hook" of sorts; this is the main reason they push apps over web versions

There are cases like media apps, camera apps, videogames, terminal emulators, clipboard managers etc. that won't become Web apps any time soon.

Either because they need to operate closer to the OS, or for performance expectation reasons.

But I've just had a quick scroll through the apps on my phone, and I can confidently say that 90% of them are basically HTTP clients that interact with an HTTP server.

And even those that do more could probably be wrapped into a WebAssembly artifact with comparable performance in a near future.

The reason why they are not PWAs, and why engineers are often expected to do triple work (iOS, Android, Web), and why there aren't more products released as PWAs, keeps eluding me.

Sure, you have to tell folks how the "Install/Add to home screen" process works from a mobile browser, but is it that really that much more friction compared to an App Store paradigm to justify the abuse of native apps that either reinvent the wheel multiple times, or are just unglorified Web browsers running an Electron app just to show you the discounts at the supermarket near your house?

These are more like byproduct of the fact that web apps are built on the stack not suited for modern UI apps. It's literally a text typesetting engine pretending to be a rendering engine for high-performance UI.

So, it can also be framed as:

- everything is selectable, even what shouldn't be - buttons, drawers, video players, etc - content is zoomable, which most of the time just breaks UX in hilariuous ways. Developers have to do extra-work to either disable zoom or make hacks/workarounds.

"Everything is selectable" and "everything is zoomable" makes total sense if it's a blog post. If it's a UI for the modern app, it does not.

This is an outdated view of the web. Catch up or be left behind.

But mainly don't expect any good web app integration on mobile, because it would hit the store 30% tax.

I've had enough browser apps try that on my phone. Usually they start to lag out and become unbearably slow due to the framework bloat, compared to native apps that have no such issues.

Browsers are some of the very few apps that work well on a phone. Most of the other ones feel like a mess (except games I guess).

Real question here, what are you trying to do when you "swipe back"?

By instinct I swipe back like I am in Safari, and that does something else in those.

Guess which one of us has way more problems, due to both functionality and a constantly changing layout?

Strange. This inability to select any text has always felt like one of the most hostile things developers could ever do. It feels like pure vandalism.

Another thing that causes massive productivity degradation is not being able to keep multiple pages open so you can come back to some state. I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly use these apps for any serious work.

The UX of almost all native mobile apps is absolute crap. But it's not their nativeness that makes them crap. I'm not complaining about the idea of operating systems offering non-portable but high performance UI primitives that make use of OS facilities.

Many native desktop apps don't have these UX issues (at least not all of them at the same time). It's the mobile UX patterns, conventions and native UI frameworks that are causing this catastrophic state of affairs.

Reddit on iOS was one that did it.

Even if you could (which you can't, at least on my, modern, phone), it would be a workaround, not a solution.

A solution would be allowing free selection like in the browser or, better yet, ditching "native" apps for web apps, as the person above suggested. As a bonus, this "exodus" will force browser makers to iron out any UX issues very quickly.

Use Circle to Search? Native capability that works on every single app, and is close to perfect (with the exception of handling text at the very bottom/top of your screen that's covered by your navbar/Google logo).

Disabling text selection is not just worse UX, it is actively user-hostile

In the past, occasionally there would be an error message in a message box dialog that I wanted to copy and paste. And then I discovered that despite it not looking selectable, it actually was.

I don't want to accidentally select the text of my menu bar, or of a text box label, or a dialog tab title.

Lots of limitations for you to not accidentally do something, maybe there is a way to not accidentally do those things and also help people that need them.

You're awfully arrogant in making a judgement about my empathy... if you want to make this personal.

Or maybe you can justify why people need to be able to select menu labels in the first place? That's not standard on any OS I've ever used, so it's up to the person who wants to change things to justify why.

Maybe be less judgmental of people here on HN, and contribute something factual instead? I at least gave a factual account of my personal experience, which is a data point. Describing one's experience isn't egoism.

At least in recent versions of Android there is that OCR (?) powered functionality to select text when you're in switch-app view.

I would suggest that these days you'd be much better off taking a screenshot and putting that into Google Translate.

That way all the text remains in-place, and you can keep it as a visual reference to refer to.

If you were selecting text, it would wind up in a kind of jumble that would be much harder to use.

Iconic mirrors a lot of it, but Apple/google could have just as easily made them native components triggered in the browser

Other than that, I'd like text to be selectable! I don't like it when apps don't allow you to copy text.

I use Copy [1], and when that doesn't work I use the OCR text selection feature on my Pixel phone.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.weberdo.ap...

The browsers are controlled and manipulated by the likes of Apple and Google. These companies have a significant influence on the direction of browser features and limitations, often shaping them to suit their business interests. For example, Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome have been criticized for implementing features that reinforce their own ecosystems, such as limiting web push notifications or restricting certain web API functionalities to encourage users toward their native apps. This ultimately means that even in the browser world, the same forces that drive the app store monopolies can still control and restrict what’s possible, even if the web is inherently more open. So while web apps offer more flexibility than native apps in theory, the reality is that Apple and Google’s control over the browsers still limits the true potential of a completely open web.

Who do you think controls Android and iOS native APIs?

Web standards at least have public forums and specs, with multiple parties involved. And all the major browser engines are open source and apps built for them are relatively cross-compatible.

However I still do like to have apps on my devices that just work offline, without distributing my data across services I do not control. And I also do not want to depend on a internet connection, when I am anywhere.

I like my offline Osmand/Organic Maps app to show me the trails when I am somewhere in the woods or mountains. I like my apps that instead on using some third party server, connect directly to my other local devices to share data.

IMO all (where possible) apps should be developed offline first, and only require internet when necessary, and those apps that cannot work without internet should be web apps, they do not need to be on my devices.

Platform owners introduce a bunch of restrictions that create reliability and usability concerns, but the standards already exist to enable a website operator to create a webapp that, after the initial ‘install’, runs entirely offline on the user’s device, and has no need to communicate with the website.

In cases where a native app and web app are both available on iOS, there’s often a huge difference in battery usage and sluggishness. Also, as a sibling poster mentioned, I like having fully “offline” apps as well, for example for maps and notes.

I’m not saying that I like how Apple and Google have done this in practice, but I don’t think going webapp-only is the future. For the same reason I won’t replace my real computer with a Chromebook for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, like single native instagram draining battery faster than combination of multiple websites that I visit in Safari.

> For the same reason I won’t replace my real computer with a Chromebook for the foreseeable future.

> real computer

Where most of the modern applications are either web wrappers or Electron apps.

Only if you're stuck on a depreciated platform like Linux. If you are on Mac, native applications – real applications – are much more powerful and usable than any web wrapper on Linux.

I've noticed Linux users have taken a habit of proposing their broken way of using a computer through the browser for other platforms as well. But on other platforms we are already spoiled with quality software.

I’ve been using Nova for the last few years. Increasingly native non-Xcode development tools seem to be few and far between. I have BBEdit and Nova, but a lot of people have switched to VS Code it seems.

Google Gears got deprecated because something something move to standard HTMl and browser features and now we don’t really have any offline web apps.

The ability to have non sluggish, offline web apps has existed for decades now, but the interest from providers has been declining and the understanding that this is possible is also declining on the consumer side.

Here are some of the frustrations I had with PWA's.

There are massive differences between browsers and Android/iOS when it comes to storage, access to local files, and size limitations. Proper backup/sync of large files using IndexedDB, Cache API, or localStorage is not as straightforward as native storage.

Service workers aren’t designed for complex or long-running computations, But they’re more like lightweight assistants, and you would have a HUGE pain trying to accommodate all the different browser/OS limitations if you need predictable background sync/backup. This seems maybe to be better going forward due to frameworks like Ionic/Capacitor or Workbox.js tho.

PWAs are tethered to the web’s security model, which means they’re generally restricted to HTTP and HTTPS for communication. This limits direct access to protocols like SMTP (email) and FTP (file transfer). You’re stuck with web-friendly options like WebSockets or WebRTC, or you’ll need a server to act as a middleman. Building a torrent client would be really annoying due to the limited protocol access. The WebTorrent JavaScript framework, which can run in the browser, does not fully support traditional TCP/UDP torrent protocols directly but instead relies on WebRTC data channels. Therefore, your app will only connect to peers supporting WebRTC, which significantly reduces available torrents and peer counts. Also, there often is an added level of restriction to background processes on mobile.

There are also limits to access of the devices APIs: - NFC (partial Web NFC support in Android Chrome) - Bluetooth (Web Bluetooth limited to Chrome Android, absent in iOS) - Native contacts, SMS inbox, telephony, or system-wide calendars. - Some system-level sensors (barometer, precise accelerometer data).

Also: Web apps often perform slower on heavy graphics or computation than native apps due to lack of direct GPU access. I have not tested this myself, but I know this has gotten better.

Onwards: - PWAs can't directly register as the default handler for specific file types or URL schemes across the OS. - PWAs cannot reliably run background tasks (like precise location tracking, audio playback, VoIP callbacks, or continuous data monitoring) when inactive. - WebAuthn supports biometrics, but native biometric APIs (like Face ID/Touch ID) offer deeper integration for specific app functionality. This is a HUGE need for our firm, as we rely on it for easy authentication for our app, and customers love it over other authentication methods. - PWAs can't easily embed widgets into the OS home screen or system-level UI components like control center integration.

YES, PWAs are much more capable than some people think and could, in many instances, work just as well as a native app. (I use GeForce Now on iOS with not many problems.)

And this is not even touching on how much easier it is to use Android/iOS SDKs to put together an application, and user expectations (which might be WRONG when they think PWAs are lesser or more insecure, but these attitudes are still reality).

All that said, I prefer PWA over native myself due to publication freedom, but I get annoyed when you talk down to people, and you seem to be the one that doesn't understand that there are actual limitations.

Sure there are limitations to PWAs, but quite a vast majority of apps don't need the missing features.

I find native Android and especially iOS SDKs vastly more difficult and cumbersome to develop for. Doubly so of course if you have to develop for both. Maybe if you're already used to the Android/iOS development mess it is easier short term than to learn something new.

That's exactly the point. More developer control, less user control. Can't change cookie settings in an app, can't (easily) block ads, can't use developer tools to remove annoying UI elements, can't disable phone home mechanics, can't prevent the developer from profiling you.

IMO this is in the range of „why we use machines to transport if we all have legs”. Technically true, but applications do more than only UI.

I've heard this argument for the past 30 years (we won’t be using apps, everything will be remote console/terminal/webpage/web). Chromebooks were meant for web-first access, and yet native apps are still alive and kicking.

A big issue with this trend is that unlike the web, the whole Android ecosystem is a walled garden which is strictly controlled by Google. In principle you can run your own custom Android ROM, but in practice this will lock you out from any app which uses Play Integrity API to enforce Google's totalitarian regime which dictates what software YOU are allowed to run on "your" hardware.

Login is better on the iOS app as you can use touch id/faceId and not userid/password also the webpage asks for cookies as it can't seem to remember the choice

There seem to be sites for your GP (which mine does via a .nhs.uk domain it used to be via https://account.patientaccess.com/ which still shows appointments but does not allow booking but still allows requests for repeat prescriptions.) or hospital portal for results.

I don’t understand people who use apps for this. It is such a pain.

I do most things on my desktop for the reasons you say but on a phone multiple tabs etc is a pain.

Their websites do (although even on new phones you are at a greater risc of a tab being purged and needing a reload, but still you can multi tab on the mobile website)

Besides companies focus on apps, not on web pages. Less money, less focus, therefore worse experience

A week ago, via TravelPerk which is literally a web wrapper.

> And how do you deal with all of the real estate the browser steals?

What?

> Having to log in every time when the app can just cache my authentication and FaceID me?

I literally use the same FaceID for my passwords/proton pass. Also, this depends on a website.

Sounds like a broken web app.

You are currently using a webapp that doesn't do this. It's called Hacker News, and it never asks me to login every time on my phone.

> when the app can just cache my authentication and FaceID me

Sounds like a broken login form.

Hacker News also allows me to login with Face ID on my phone, thanks to my password manager.

Optionally webapps can also provide Passkeys.

>

> You are currently using a webapp that doesn't do this. It's called Hacker News, and it never asks me to login every time on my phone.

Every time I visit Hacker News on my iPad I'm logged out. Apple has decided that if you don't visit a website often enough it will expire all your cookies for the site.

In practice that means I can log in to HN while I'm at the cafe one weekend and be logged out by the time I visit the next weekend.

Apparently HN does it on purpose and kills alls sessions on all devices when you log off.

In many other cases I agree with you.

Even if it's gRPC or something more exotic, it'll be over TLS (you best hope it is).

You can have a webapp cached locally on your device. PWAs allow developers to create an SPA you can open from your homescreen, and to do that API interaction the same way as a native app.

I hope you and your family are well, and it's great that tech helped. But please, don't think that because this tech worked in this instance it can't be made safer and securer.

Many apps are apps just because they can collect your data, and create walled gardens. It is harder to create extensions for existing apps, for web pages it is easier.

GPs comment is something that people in politics would called sensational. Extreme rhetoric is great for upvotes because it stirs emotions but it’s not rational.

While apps are spying etc, making them is usually a no-brainer compared to churning and leaky web stacks. And probably not a single time a webapp loaded for me when I tried it outside standing in the wind trying to figure something out. It was always an app that started and helped and didn't ever scroll horizontally while doing so.

But we could argue that if webapps were more used on mobiles, new APIs would have been opened to facilitate cross-app integrations.

The disadvantage of native is barrier to install. Once that's done, the experience to the user is simply superior. True native experience, fast and predictable. As a developer it's easier to build those types of apps as well.

People who haven't used iOS might not understand this though as they've never seen "how things should be".

Becoming the middle man is the default model that supports scale. No one has come up with anything else to support a world where avg disposable income is close to 0

FTFY

... and ram requirements for good performance went down by 66% ...

Apps are faster, are more predictable (no auto-reloading or rendering issues) and generally perform better IMO.

On the other hand, in reality, you're correct. I think the NYTimes app will collect more data from me than the NYTimes website.

Just to confirm:

I dumped all of my notes from my insanely large apple notes (about 16000 lines of text) and pasted them into Google Keep, Notion, Google Docs. With the exception of Google Docs the rest of them flat out froze and I had to kill my browser. Stop trying to tell us that the browser is the answer to everything when most web apps cant do the job of Notepad.exe or vi

So, one out of three webapps that you tested could handle this much text. It suggests that the problem for the other two is their implementation, rather than any limitation of the browser.

Of the two that failed, did you also try the app versions to see if they failed too? I really doubt the Notion app could handle 16000 lines of text.

Tried putting 20k lines into it. Loaded instantly, allowed me to scroll and edit flawlessly.

But I get your point. I'm on a pretty decent 2022 iPhone, and I'm sure at some stage I would run into a performance hit. But not at 20k lines.

You cant slap a plain text field and assume that emulates the actual experience in any way.

Actually, when the iPhone was introduced, Apple wanted it to have only a few select native apps (like Maps or Mail) and all the rest to be web apps.

They were browbeaten into opening an app store by the developers, who wanted to do native apps, not the other way around like you say.

Not really. And this is why native apps are necessary. You can't use the built-in camera on an iphone successfully in this way, and I don't know any director who has. They use specialized third-party apps which give them the appropriate control.

Can we stick to "by and large"? Every year many youtubers make a video of trying to use ipad/samsung dex as the productive computer for a day. Last I checked they always end the same way.

In 2025? Sure, you can do some (but not all) of that in a browser? In 2010, when those systems were becoming popular? Absolutely not a chance.

People forget that Apple initially tried this exact approach. On the first iPhone, that's how you were supposed to do apps. People wanted native so much that they were willing to go the extra mile, jailbreak their device, document the undocumented iPhone SDK and write their own toolchain. The user demand for native was clearly so overwhelming that Apple finally relented and gave in.

Even a few years later, Facebook tried hard to have a single, cross-platform HTML5 website instead of bothering with apps. Even then, browsers just weren't there yet, and they probably had the best engineers and resources on that project one could have had for any money.

there are games, there are offline programs

---

website-as-an-app do needs to be squashed, that's something I do agree with you

https://www.sencha.com/, the vendor of the ExtJS framework tried to argue that Facebook was wrong (2012): https://www.infoq.com/news/2012/12/Fastbook/

I worked for a company that used Sencha back in the day and wrote the first React integration over their form/datagrid components in 2013. React ate their lunch

Also with the bank apps I think there's extra security over a webapp - on the iphone they often scan my face.

That said most of the time you are right.

I am fairly convinced that some apps are just wrappers around web apps. The Virgin Money (Uk bank brand) app used to ask for cookie permissions on launch and felt very like their website used to (until it was removed and they went app only).

Or am I not understanding what you mean when you use the quoted name "Apps"?

- Timer / alarm clock - Camera - File browser - Offline maps - Another web browser

But not 250MB banking app.

Absolute absence of lag, glitches, rendering issues, memory use in the kilobytes etc. is possible with native applications.

I feel like an actual security-driven design is a lot better than just relegating everything to the browser.

Also, this situation benefits the google-apple duopoly, since it means superior products (remember Windows Phone 8?) or privacy focused devices (FirefoxOS) have no chance of getting a foothold in the marketplace.

The objections I see in sibling comments are nonsense. Modern web supports high frame rates, developer control over the UI, etc, etc.

Edit: and I’ll venture a guess that since mobile apps can’t use things like ad blockers, companies probably prefer them. More control over what you look at.

1. Better UX and responsiveness for users, including better offline use.

2. Using native hardware APIs. How are you going to do things that require on device video compression, or realtime graphics that are more advanced than GL ES, etc

3. Battery life and performance. A native app can use less power than a web view for doing its work, and it can also make use of better async/concurrency/threading than a web view allows for.

How could you possibly consider intensive games to be "simply" web apps? How about network apps like vpns, wifi analyzers? Have you really not come across such apps or are we meant to think every app is a TODO application?

Both web and native has been driven by the same corporate forces, the argument here should be technical only - what can you do on native that you can't on the web. Mixing this technical matter with corporate policies muddies the waters.

Normies don't turn off notifications. Over the last few years all my relatives have picked up smart watches, (thanks to cell carriers upselling them hard during phone replacements) and in any given conversation at family events they'll be glancing at their wrist every 100 seconds.

this is the actual reason why companies push people to install and use their apps instead of their website.