Nope, I don't want that either.

I also don't want every mobile webpage I visit to use some slow janky JavaScript framework to emulate native app behavior either because in my experience the user experience for those are universally worse than just trying to be a relatively normal web page (perhaps with some media queries for image sizes, etc) and letting the mobile web browser do its thing.

I have limited mobile/smartphone/app experience.

It feels that Desktop apps are sorely neglected. Spotify for example feels really ancient, a weird UI for such a popular product. I only assume the mobile versions are more logical and easier to use. I wouldn't want to immitate the desktop versions. So I read your comment as somethnig like the immitation of Apple's cover flow. And yes in that way I agree.

Do you think it's the lack of standardisation of menuing/navigation/paging in web pages/sites that isn't helping matters?

Yes, you are, along with most users here. But it's not stopping companies from wanting to control UX entirely though a mobile application. One of the reasons for this is that in general, mobile webpage performance is complete ass. A thorough but by-no-means complete diagnosis of the problem can be found here: http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow...

More control of UX sounds the reason people used Flash before web 2.0.

TL;DR? Anyone recommend a fast frondend set? HTML5 boilerplate or Bootstrap, or...?

You don't get fast by adding frameworks, you get fast by removing them.

Ha ha correct of course. It's all about the budget though. Quick and affordable equals frameworks.

Nagging me to install the app before I've even seen the site is a sure way to get me to leave and never return.

If you simply must toss up one of those uber-annoying "Please install our app! PLEAAAAAAAAASE!" popovers, at least do me the courtesy of letting me look at a couple of pages on the site first. How am I supposed to know that I want your app when I haven't even seen your site?

Otherwise my answer is going to be not just "no" but "HELL, NO!"

Agree.

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2013/05/i-dont-want-your-fucking-app...

I prefer the reddit native app than the website reddit.com on my iphone 5, in my opinion navigation is faster and the information is presented more clearly.

Hmm, I am the opposite. Infact, the reddit mobile site is one of the few mobile web apps I use on a daily basis.

It would be a good to compare apps to sites.

The only app I installed on the Blackberry (my brief foray into smartphones...), was the independent app (newspaper), and I preferred accessing news through that than the website. A very simple interface that let me get to news quickly. I could even download the news up front over WIFI and then read it on the train without a data connection.

But then I don't want to have to download an app for every news outet. So you start thinking perhaps there should be a general news app and so on. One general app feels a little more managable.

Not at all: http://idontwantyourfuckingapp.tumblr.com/

No, most users are like you and wonder why every bank, florist, fast food chain, ISP has an app (that generally doesn’t do what you’d expect it to do). Even tailored Analytics solutions have apps. However, creating an app is not decided by those users directly: it’s a small and simple project by HN standards, one that most middle-to-large company has felt compelled to attempt to look cool, but it remains too difficult for most users who’d prefer synergies.

That's why I have (and alas, need) 15 airline apps, but actually would prefer to have only two that could handle everything much better: Kayak and Apple’s Passbook.

Apps are usually better in every way than web sites (I'd love a good HN app for my iPhone). If I visit a site frequently, I'd want an app for it.

But for infrequently used sites, the hassle isn't worth the benefit.

http://hn.premii.com/ great HN mobile webapp for phone, made with html5

I tried it and the experience is pretty weak compared to say Alien Blue for Reddit.

No, I use the web whenever I can. I use apps only for very specific functions (music player, audiobook player [that is tied to the library system or i would simply use the audio player], maps).

Why download, upgrade, share memory space on my device for apps when I'm pretty sure I can't really trust the creators with my data anyway?

Indeed. But you could probably break these pages into app categories -- "things I read (flipboard, reader apps), things I look at (flickr, instagram), things I watch (youtube), etc."

I personally love apps that are stupid simple and stupid straightforward. You know, like melon ballers: they do precisely one thing, but they do it so incredibly well, you don't understand how you got along without one before.

Melon baller apps.

I think I have more apps on my phone than I ever visited sites with it.

If I want to navigate on the web, I'll use a desktop. Only if I can't, and in that order, I'll try a laptop, tablet, or phone. The interface gets worse the more portable the device is, and at the phone extreme my usage is quite restricted to small apps, with few, to-the-point functionality or simple games.

That and the apparent insecurity, or my own personal lack of understanding of application security that puts me off of even owning something like an Android device. For now I'm more comfortable with web pages.

It's difficult enough managing bookmarks. I'd feel hemmed in with apps on a smartphone, if I had to order icons, select and install applications. I don't think I could be bothered.

Having said that it has pretty much always been about the software. If I was compelled enough, I'd take the rough with the smooth.