"Apps"

[steve30]

So, what's the big deal with apps?

I use ebay a lot (have done for two decades now), and it now often shows a pop up saying "Get £10 off in our app".

I started going to a 24 hour gym a few years ago. Fortunately they had a very good website (which many others don't). By the time I left, they had redesigned some of the website; in fact it looked like they were running two completely different systems simultaneously, but a lot of the functionality had been completely removed and moved in to an 'app' which can only be obtained from the Google/Apple stores - no longer could you access it of any machine with any web browser.

I'm seeing more and more like this, where they advertise better pricing with apps, or seem to be moving certain features to apps. With regards to smartphones, if there really any advantage of apps over a website, given that most smartphones have up to date browsers?

[David Hess]

The advantage of "apps" on your phone is that various permissions will allow them to track you, read content, in other words spy on you.  A web browser is much more limiting, for them.

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, there's the tracking, which allows them to gather information about you for marketing purposes (and also that they can sell to third-parties).
They can also push notifications to your phone, which are probably considered more effective than e-mail.
Basically, via an app, they virtually have access to your attention for as long as you're awake.

Now another practical reason is that an increasing number of people have stopped using computers in their day-to-day life and mainly use phones (and tablets). Browsing web sites on a phone is inconvenient, tailored apps work better. So, they have to address this demand. And then, maintaining both systems is costly, so they are pushing people to use their apps instead.

Mobile phones are a marketer's dream. Imagine, something that people have with them almost 24/7.

[dferyance]

There may also be a push to "apps" to keep APIs and code hidden / proprietary. A website is easy to automate/script, a phone less so. Also code can be compiled instead of javascript.

It also might be that the company spent money on developing the app, so they have to drum up users to justify that cost. That kind of reverse thinking is common.

[brucehoult]

The advantage of "apps" on your phone is that various permissions will allow them to track you, read content, in other words spy on you.  A web browser is much more limiting, for them.

iOS is better than Android in that regard.

Also, a lot of "apps" are just wrapped HTML pages anyway. The biggest thing is formatting the pages for a small portrait screen ... which you can do on the web site version too. Lots of web site have a mobile/desktop toggle .. or even just detect (but I do sometimes like to run desktop version on my phone to access extra features, even though there is a lot of zooming and panning needed)

[Someone]

They can also push notifications to your phone, which are probably considered more effective than e-mail

As an example every time I open a mandatory app that a company requires people to install to replace their fully functional website (no other way to do business with them now, all via app) it asks to allow notifications every single time its opened. This is an app that has no need for notifications other than advertising. Opt out, every single time.

Things like that and full screen ads (apps or websites) that have a tiny close button in some grey on grey 90% visibility vs click anywhere else to bounce out to unwanted content. In services which I pay for, and am already logged in, still they force ads.

At some point legislators will have to intervene before the general public are just wading through crap pushed in their face that has to be manually dismissed to do day to day activities (physical shops/services that require membership + app) that exceeds their time doing useful work. Or thanks to it being poisoned like email and phone numbers enough people will just stop engaging at all with the pathway and reply "sorry, didn't see your message as too many scammers and advertising has clogged that channel" and then we'll need some new channel to replace it briefly before that one gets clogged. Most people know someone who never answers their phone, or lets their emails fill up with (tens of) thousands of unread messages.

Physical Mail > Phone Number > Email > Notifications > ??

No junk mail signs, do not call register, and email unsubscribe laws are all largely ineffective, so not much hope for anything else.

[Halcyon]

The advantage of "apps" on your phone is that various permissions will allow them to track you, read content, in other words spy on you.  A web browser is much more limiting, for them.

iOS is better than Android in that regard.

I've had the opposite experience. Android allows you to be much more granular with permissions.

[golden_labels]

Once again, Hanlon’s razor delivers the primary explanation. People usually don’t have any deeper thought about the choices they make. Management is not an exception. They just follow the first solution that appears in their mind in connection with a problem to solve. Now smartphones are everywhere, they seen apps of other companies, so that is the idea that comes to their mind. Any rational choices are secondary to that.

Among those secondary, rational reasons there are a few.

The most important one: cost reduction. You only need to maintain one or two versions of the codebase. Both in a very predictable environment. You can hire much less experienced developers. Everything happens within company’s premises,⁽¹⁾ which also reduces maintenance and troubleshooting costs. If the company offers the same functions through a website, they need to deal with a magnitude more environments. They need to deal with user’s freedom, which smartphone apps effectively ban.⁽²⁾⁽³⁾ You also need to hire much better workforce. In particular if you want to make a proper website.

At this point it’s worth noting, that most of what people consider “website” is in fact apps. In no way different than those on smartphones. Not rarely they even share large portions of code. The browser is currently the operating system, which downloads the application onto user’s computer and runs it. True websites are mostly eliminated. The moment you refuse that, majority of commercial and even governmental web now refuses to even deal with you.

Coincidentally that does induce costs and more problems. But instead of stop forcing  apps on users, the management just prefers to drop support. After all it’s cheapest of the three options.

Control over issues management crowd finds important. Brand image, religious-like level consistency, absolute control, superficial professionalism, conflict avoidance, and pretense of rationality. Apps, by completely eliminating user freedom and being run in the most consistent environment available, are supporting all this. A website? What if the company logo is not rendered in a run of text exactly as the design book indicated? Do you want to give some manager a heart attack and need for half year of PTSD therapy after they see a form field is shifted 1 pixel to the right? What if 1% of users can’t see automatically populated list of options? What if one in a million of users complains on Facebook, that they had problems using the site (due to their own misconfigured connection)?

Control over users. With a smartphone app, you can precisely define how exactly the user should be routed and funneled. And the user has no option to deviate from that. They will see exactly what the company wants to see, at exactly the moment the company wants, and most will “take decisions” as the company wanted them to take. And nowadays it’s crucial from business perspective to make interaction as streamlined, obstructive and “easy” as possible, as it allows maximum money to be squeezed out of people.

Privacy infringement. Yes, I list that at the end. People always have a smartphone nearby, so they produce a lot more data to be sold or directly abused. But given modern web tracking practices, the advantage is not as great as one might expect. You may protect yourself from spyware in some browsers, but in reality most people don’t enable such features.

⁽¹⁾ The app technically runs on user’s phone, but it’s a proprietary blob, over which the company has complete control. Even if it depends on third party infrastructure, it’s covered by strong agreements, so still differs little from company’s own grounds for the purpose of this talk.
⁽²⁾ Though that becomes widespread with webapps too. They simply show you the middle finger, unless you let it “their way.”
⁽³⁾ The ability to set permissions is a joke. Not only are they toys, giving the user an illusion of control, many apps will refuse to work unless you give them the permissions they demand.

[coromonadalix]

With android  you can forcibly ditch  android modules / apps  thru adb,  Apple  not

It will fight to the death, not using any apps,  remove their background usage or kill them when not used, or restrict them to a maximum 

unless  for SURE they complains about not getting access to this and that and don't want to run because of that   ex: an email manager  does not need access to a microphone

all free apps  will come with some known or hidden surprises, i try  to find all paid ones    yeah  for some i will never pay for them


the big problem is now, you buy things and automatically you accept any background process, WE HAVE LOST control

windows is now a service, comes with tons of SH#%#% ads you have to battle to remove them ... phone aps too,  Apple is more restrictive, but there are nags, Android too,  now some Chrome related ones too   pffff

[eutectique]

There could be adverse legal consequences from using an app, like in Uber case: https://agencychecklists.com/2024/07/01/the-cost-in-using-uber-losing-your-right-to-sue-71604/

“By ticking off a box to keep using the Uber app and get a ride, passengers are essentially giving up all their rights against Uber without realizing it.”

[Karel]

The advantage of "apps" on your phone is that various permissions will allow them to track you, read content, in other words spy on you.  A web browser is much more limiting, for them.

This is the only reason.

[Analog Kid]

There could be adverse legal consequences from using an app, like in Uber case: https://agencychecklists.com/2024/07/01/the-cost-in-using-uber-losing-your-right-to-sue-71604/

“By ticking off a box to keep using the Uber app and get a ride, passengers are essentially giving up all their rights against Uber without realizing it.”

Maybe.

Such "contracts", known as adhesion contracts (i.e., take-it-or-leave-it "agreements") are actually on quite shaky legal grounds and can be contested. Look up that term for more info.

[langwadt]

There could be adverse legal consequences from using an app, like in Uber case: https://agencychecklists.com/2024/07/01/the-cost-in-using-uber-losing-your-right-to-sue-71604/

“By ticking off a box to keep using the Uber app and get a ride, passengers are essentially giving up all their rights against Uber without realizing it.”

Maybe.

Such "contracts", known as adhesion contracts (i.e., take-it-or-leave-it "agreements") are actually on quite shaky legal grounds and can be contested. Look up that term for more info.

can be contested,   if you have enough money for lawyers and time to do so ...

[Analog Kid]

There could be adverse legal consequences from using an app, like in Uber case: https://agencychecklists.com/2024/07/01/the-cost-in-using-uber-losing-your-right-to-sue-71604/

“By ticking off a box to keep using the Uber app and get a ride, passengers are essentially giving up all their rights against Uber without realizing it.”

Maybe.

Such "contracts", known as adhesion contracts (i.e., take-it-or-leave-it "agreements") are actually on quite shaky legal grounds and can be contested. Look up that term for more info.

can be contested,   if you have enough money for lawyers and time to do so ...

True.
Might be a good candidate for a class-action suit, assuming enough people and $$$.