Progressive Web Apps 'Don't Spy or Clog Your Phone'. Do You Use Them? (msn.com) 94
"It's worth questioning the status quo of technology," argues the Washington Post's Tech Friend newsletter, "including apps as we know them."
Then they tout the benefits of the "non-app app... a hybrid of a website and a conventional app, with features of each" — the unappreciated Progressive Web App (which many still don't know can be installed on your phone's home screen): Web apps look and function pretty much like the conventional apps for your phone or computer, but they clog less space on your device and are less pushy about surveilling you. People who make web apps also say they are easier to create and update than conventional apps... But web apps have been around for years, and most people don't know they exist...
[Traditional apps] come with profound downsides, including Big Tech control, privacy compromises and high development costs. It would be healthy if there were palatable alternative paths to our current app system. Web apps might be part of the solution... At their core, web apps are "the web with an app-like cover," said Rob Kochman, senior product manager for Google's Chrome. Kochman and other web app fans say these apps are less demanding and less intrusive than a conventional app. The web app for Starbucks, for example, takes up just 429 kilobytes of storage on my phone — or less than 1 percent of the storage taken by the standard Starbucks Android app...
And by design, once a conventional app is on your phone, it can access your phone's guts and peek under the hood of your internet network. Web apps are stingier about access, Kochman and other experts told me. "If you're worried about installing some app, you'd probably prefer that as a web app," said a veteran tech executive who helped develop the original technology for web apps. He referred to a web app as "just a website that took all the right vitamins...."
It's difficult to figure out which companies make web apps or find them. There's not an app store for web apps, although there are some attempts like Store.App and Appscope. They're not ideal... Some technologists told me that Apple has held back web apps by limiting their capabilities for Apple devices. The company has said that's not true. And this year, Apple added iPhone feature options for web apps...
We should keep challenging what can feel like immutable parts of digital life, including apps. We have to keep asking: What if there's something better?
It's as easy as "press the three-dot icon, then select 'Add to home screen.'" But it'd be interesting to hear the perspective of Slashdot readers. So share your thoughts and experiences in the comments.
Are you using progressive web apps?
Then they tout the benefits of the "non-app app... a hybrid of a website and a conventional app, with features of each" — the unappreciated Progressive Web App (which many still don't know can be installed on your phone's home screen): Web apps look and function pretty much like the conventional apps for your phone or computer, but they clog less space on your device and are less pushy about surveilling you. People who make web apps also say they are easier to create and update than conventional apps... But web apps have been around for years, and most people don't know they exist...
[Traditional apps] come with profound downsides, including Big Tech control, privacy compromises and high development costs. It would be healthy if there were palatable alternative paths to our current app system. Web apps might be part of the solution... At their core, web apps are "the web with an app-like cover," said Rob Kochman, senior product manager for Google's Chrome. Kochman and other web app fans say these apps are less demanding and less intrusive than a conventional app. The web app for Starbucks, for example, takes up just 429 kilobytes of storage on my phone — or less than 1 percent of the storage taken by the standard Starbucks Android app...
And by design, once a conventional app is on your phone, it can access your phone's guts and peek under the hood of your internet network. Web apps are stingier about access, Kochman and other experts told me. "If you're worried about installing some app, you'd probably prefer that as a web app," said a veteran tech executive who helped develop the original technology for web apps. He referred to a web app as "just a website that took all the right vitamins...."
It's difficult to figure out which companies make web apps or find them. There's not an app store for web apps, although there are some attempts like Store.App and Appscope. They're not ideal... Some technologists told me that Apple has held back web apps by limiting their capabilities for Apple devices. The company has said that's not true. And this year, Apple added iPhone feature options for web apps...
We should keep challenging what can feel like immutable parts of digital life, including apps. We have to keep asking: What if there's something better?
It's as easy as "press the three-dot icon, then select 'Add to home screen.'" But it'd be interesting to hear the perspective of Slashdot readers. So share your thoughts and experiences in the comments.
Are you using progressive web apps?
Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I use my phone to talk. "
With whom?
Nobody picks up the phone anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I go outdoors to travel to places I want to get to, eat in nice restaurants, buy stuff I like, take photos and videos of family and friends and the world around me, etc etc. All activities that are easier and / or better with my iPhone/Watch:
1. Fastest and easiest way to get through the gates on the tube / use a bus / navigate in my car
2. Much the fastest way to pay in a restaurant, plus I use an app that helps quickly split the bills
3. Camera is more than good enough for my needs plus the photo
Re: (Score:3)
I go into the wilderness to get away from society, not technology.
Re: (Score:3)
'Desktop' includes laptop. See plenty of those on the train, plane, in a coffee shop or out in the park.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonder how many here are like us...
I can write apps (well, Android or whatever Unity can compile to), but I refuse to use 'em on my phone for things that I do from my browser on a desktop/laptop, like check bank balances, etc. I'm a curmudgeon I guess, but don't see the sense of giving up limited space on my i-Thing to get a replication of a bank's website. Less of their crap means more of the crap I care about - pics of my kids, fish I've caught, etc. and mp3 storage.
oops (Score:2)
I accidentally installed one of these progressive apps.
It whined and threw tantrums the entire time I was in the flouting booth, as it didn't like my selections . . .
Re: (Score:2)
'Add to home screen.'
You know what sort of app I'd kill for? One that automatically responds "No" to roughly every second web site on the planet that wants me to add some piece of crap I don't want to the home screen. That's the one Regressive... sorry, "Progressive" app I'd actually run.
Re: Sorry (Score:3, Informative)
PWAs aren't just for mobile. They work just fine on desktop too.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're lost and need to consult a map, how do you find your way back home to the maps on your desktop computer?
Snarking aside, I agree it is largely possible to live your life without apps, and I try to do so as much as possible. But for things like bus arrival times, maps when I'm lost, QR codes for events that only give you a QR code ticket, etc, I use a browser on my phone, or an app as a last resort. PWAs would be a nice in-between for those - essentially a browser bookmark on my desktop (home scre
Re: (Score:1)
I use my phone to talk. I use a desktop computer for everyrthing else. I'm neither tied to my phone or my computer. My life is so great because of that.
Ok boomer.
Re: (Score:1)
More like Luddite. Even my boomer parents use apps!
Re: (Score:1)
I use my phone to talk. I use a desktop computer for everyrthing else. I'm neither tied to my phone or my computer. My life is so great because of that.
You forgot to tell everyone that you don't own a TV and you're vegan too!
Re: (Score:1)
Umm (Score:3, Informative)
Some technologists told me that Apple has held back web apps by limiting their capabilities for Apple devices. The company has said that's not true.
Given the only allowed web browser on the platform is a total piece of shit, I'd say that's true.
Re: Umm (Score:1)
What do you mean? Iâ(TM)m ah e opera and chrome on my iPhone.
Re: Umm (Score:5, Informative)
No you don't. You have Safari with an Opera skin and Safari with a Chrome skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Umm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing to do with the browser engine and everything to do with the input method. I'm using Firefox on Windows, and I instinctively type typographical apostrophes/quotes because I'm so used to doing it. I have to consciously remember to type ugly 'foot marks' instead of âquotesâ(TM) on Slashdot, and even then I forget sometimes..
Re: (Score:2)
No chance (Score:2)
Nobody uses them, nobody even knows about them. I always figured PWAs were dead on arrival because Apple refuses to allow them, and will never do so for obvious reasons. Sad but true.
Re:No chance (Score:4, Informative)
The problems is user expectations. People with iPhones generally assume that they have 'the best' or 'most advanced' thing on the market. If a feature doesn't work, they'll blame the developers and not Apple. This is why developers can't just code to the standard and put pressure on Apple to conform with little warming messages "This feature requires and up-to-date web browser" or something like that.
By forbidding competing browsers and refusing to support modern standards, Apple is hurting everyone, not just iOS users. With luck, Europe can do something about the first problem and iOS users can enjoy a modern, standards compliant, browser for the first time.
Re: No chance (Score:2)
By "Europe", I guess you mean "EU". They're not the same thing. I certainly hope they don't force that crap on us because it will just encourage the slide to Google's vision of the web, like Microsoft did 20 years ago with Internet Explorer. Furthermore, I don't want to install anything from Google on my phone, and pity the fool who does.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing that anti-competitive practices will ... prevent a monopoly? Oh, my...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft Edge is now just a rebranded Google product and thus enforces Google's vision of the internet. Apple has nothing close to a monopoly on mobile so rumours of the EU's plans looks more like they're being anti-Apple rather than really worrying about competition and the health of the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No chance (Score:3)
They have a discoverability problem. I only found out about them after looking up how to write ChromeOS apps and being directed to PWA documentation. We need better communication about these. It would help if a major app pushed you to use a PWA instead to educate users.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No chance (Score:2)
Maybe Iâ(TM)m misunderstanding you⦠but PWAs work fine on Apple devices. Have since the beginning of the iPhone - in fact, that was the ONLY kind of app that worked on the original iPhone. You can âoeinstallâ them by going to Share->Add To Homescreen
Just Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I find them a little annoying. For instance, somehow, without fail, I always end up somehow going to the PWA for CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) whenever I read news articles. I don't ever remember selecting to use this, but somehow they think it's a better experiece then just going to the website. I don't find it to be useful at all. I think that PWA could be a good thing for some cases, but it should be something that the user has to specifically opt into using, and it should also be able to be uninstalled or disabled with minimal efford
Re:Just Annoying (Score:4, Informative)
A PWA is just a web site or web app that can be installed and used offline. That's the whole point. If you think you're getting the PWA when you visit the website, that's because they're the same thing.
I think that PWA could be a good thing for some cases, but it should be something that the user has to specifically opt into using
It is something the user has to specifically opt into. You have to specifically allow them to be installed. Otherwise, your phone would be filled with app icons from drive-by PWAs!
When Microsoft finally discovered the internet, they missed the web and believed that the real power would come from internet connected applications. They thought we'd want to download separate applications (that run on Windows, naturally) for each service we wanted to use. The web saved us from that particular hell, but iOS and the app craze dragged us back down.
I see PWAs as a way to claw our way back out. It seems like Apple does as well, which is why they're doing everything in their power to frustrate PWA adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
When Microsoft finally discovered the internet, they missed the web and believed that the real power would come from internet connected applications. They thought we'd want to download separate applications (that run on Windows, naturally) for each service we wanted to use.
To be fair, we did exactly that for quite a while - eg: Gopher, FTP, IRC, Telnet, Usenet - running a fat client connected to internet based servers. Then the web came along and a lot of those were recreated in the browser.
Re: (Score:2)
We actually still have all of those. I don't think we mind because they're 'generic' interfaces. We can use just one client to connect to any number of unrelated servers. Things like Archie and Veronica might be better examples. (For anyone who doesn't know, they were applications that let you search FTP and Gopher sites.) The internet was a lot smaller back then.
Instant messaging clients are an interesting case. They did essentially the same thing but used proprietary protocols so you had to have multi
Why not just use a web site? (Score:5, Insightful)
These apps, as I understand it, are just mini browser windows loading a particular web site right? Why not just use a browser to access the web site designed for phone screen use?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not just use a web site? (Score:5, Informative)
The https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org] highlights the differences
Re: (Score:3)
Looking through that list... for most apps, none of that is particularly compelling.
To pick one: Different people will have different opinions, but for me an app being able to run in the background is not a "plus" in most cases. For most real apps on my phone, I explicitly turn that off - if I'm not looking at it, I don't want it running.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few limited use cases where I want something from the web running in the background, in its own window, accessing device features, and able to be loaded from anywhere. In general, I don't want apps accessing device features, just because all the device feature stats (IMEI, battery status, resolution, other apps running and their usage) wind up exfiltrated and sold off. I don't want a PWA downloaded from some oddball source being able to perhaps use some security hole in a specific make/model o
Re: (Score:2)
They're just websites that work offline. They are likely far safer / more secure than random app store apps. You also have to purposefully install them, so if you don't like them you don't have to use them.
Personally, I'd rather have the freedom that comes from not being forced to use an app store for everything. I'd like to be able to use whatever OS I want, without also living in an app dessert. Standards are good for everyone.
As for things running in the background, there are tons of things you want
Re: (Score:2)
A progressive web app (PWA) is an app that's built using web platform technologies....
That was enough for me to unconsciously, but physically, call out, "NOPE!" I wouldn't have realized I'd done it until the people near me stopped what they were doing and asked what I meant. As both a Web programmer and a desktop programmer, I need a really stupendously and seriously compelling reason to make something for the Web.
Web programming technologies FUCKING SUCK like few other things in history could possibly match, and I don't see it getting any better in my lifetime. Web development is one of the
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, preach it! I agree, HTML and everything else that has come after it is an abomination. I tried web design as a side gig in the mid to late 90's and dropped it like a hot potato when companies wanted to start accepting payments and implementing shopping carts on their sites. What a quagmire that was. And then the unrealistic expectations of the clients and their unwillingness to pay for the hours I spent developing ... and then redeveloping because of their "last minute changes".
Re: (Score:1)
Better phone integration = more spying not less.
Constant updating regardless of whether you really need it = fomo inducing and battery killing.
Installed directly from the web = new security risk
The PWA gets an app icon on the device = So like a bookmark link then.
Once installed, the PWA can be launched as a standalone app, rather than a website in a browser = So you could lose browser functonality, like link, bookmarking, save page, copy and paste.
PWAs can be integrated into the device = more bloatware you
Re: (Score:2)
Off-topic?!?!? Who-ever modded that is an 'intellectually challenged' fool.
Re: Why not just use a web site? (Score:2)
The major reason to use them is for better window management. If there's a site you use a lot, especially if you open multiple copies, then it all gets muddled in with your other browser tabs. You can't alt-tab to the site - for example - without manually detaching. And the window switcher shows you the browser name and icon. Nicer to have the option of just encapsulating the whole thing away from the browser.
Also, offline access is really nice to have.
Re: (Score:3)
But the browser spies MORE than apps, at least on a PC. Why is this different on a phone?
Re: (Score:2)
I would have agreed with this if it wasn't for Windows 10/11 coming on the scene. I would argue PC apps spy just as well (if not better) than web sites through a browser. At least with a browser such as FireFox you can install extensions to mitigate most of the spyware techniques. It can be done in Windows to a much lesser degree and more difficult because of tweaks needed in the registry and such. Bottom line, the IT industry has turned in a cesspool. I used to be proud to be associated with it ... not so
Re: Why not just use a web site? (Score:1)
> right?
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, ok...I'll upgrade my comment to 'kinda'.
They're not 'mini' in any way, imo. They're actually potentially larger because they can do away with the browser junk and get to use the whole screen, including the bits around notches/etc.
However, the thing is, you can install them. It's up to the web app if, after installing, it launches with all the app fluff. It's detailed in the manifest, which is what (IMO) details how 'progressive' a web app is - which can be little or a lot. Other PWA features are usefu
Re: (Score:2)
Gab (Score:2)
That's what Gab uses and it works great
I use them for one purpose... (Score:3)
So many shopping sites, service providers (e.g. cell phones) etc. recommend you "install their app", so I tend to use the browser functionality to add a website URL to my home screen - e.g. my mobile phone providers login page, so I can check usage _without_ installing an app.
Whether they end up as a PWA or not, is really not massively important to me, just so long as I'm not clogging my phone up with more and more apps = more security risk.
I love PWAs (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to use Teams and Outlook 365 for work. I turn both websites into web apps on Linux, and it (almost) just works. The only time the illusion breaks is when I click an external link, and they open Chromium instead of Firefox.
In contrast, the "native" Teams app is really just a PWA with a bundled web browser. It is outdated, unreliable, and slow.
Re: (Score:2)
JavaScript (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even us a browser on my phone. (Score:1)
I don't even us a browser on my (android) phone. Never accepted the license and disabled the app (along with most of the others, {including Google Play Services on my first smartphone},)
The default browser on my first smartphone came with a license that incorporated an Adobe license by reference, and the Adobe license had anti-reverse-engineering terms that, as I read them, might expose me or an employer to litigation risk if I ever did commercial software work on a competing product. (I presumed that acc
Re: (Score:2)
I've occasionally wanted to use a browser but never enough to bother figuring out how to sideload a different one without using the first one or Google Play Store.
In the event you'd like to know how to do this...
1.) Enable developer mode on the phone. Go to Settings -> About Phone, and tap the 'Build Number' entry several times until it says you're a developer.
2.) Go to System -> Developer Options, and enable USB Debugging.
3.) Download the SDK platform tools [android.com] and unzip the folder somewhere.
4.) Download the Firefox APK [github.com] for your hardware (likely ARM64). Copy it into the platform tools folder from the prior step.
5.) Connect your phone to your computer. You may need
The Steve (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why Steve Jobs launched the iPhone without native apps. The idea was that all of the apps would be web apps, with offline and persistent storage if needed. Apple released tools (DashCode) to build these iPhone web apps. It was good. It was too early, but it was good.
Honestly I see the web app approach as much better than the native app approach. The walled garden of the App Store is dumb.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The Steve (Score:2)
I think the App Store is intentionally expensive. It was supposed to be a premium store for things that couldnâ(TM)t be done as web apps and require Appleâ(TM)s support and special blessing. Instead everyone just decided to pay the 30% tax and run everything natively.
No (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping you from using the website instead of the PWA. They're the same thing, after all. If anything PWAs encourage more functionality on the web, not less, as they should displace separate OS specific apps.
If you prefer using apps in-browser, you still benefit from PWAs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sites nag you to use their app now, but they have fewer incentives to nag you when their app is a PWA.
Webapps from where? (Score:3)
I looked for a Starbucks webapp. Yes, there is at least one, but it does not seem to be developed or provided BY Starbucks.
I was looking to use a third-party app why? Because I trust the security and ethics of an unrelated party? Because I expect a third-party to be accepted by Starbucks, it won't fail when Starbucks changes some API or their websites also?
What, webapps provided by the entity I wanted to do business with in the first place are this hard to find?
Oh, wait, is the Starbucks (tm) Android app I use already a PWA? I could hardly tell. Data storage alone I doubt is a useful indicator.
Yes, PWAs are cool, but getting one from another developer makes no sense to me. The risks are to me obvious and unnecessary.
Less pushy doesnâ(TM)t mean less invasive (Score:1)
Less pushy does not mean less invasive (Score:1)
call me old fashioned (Score:3)
...but I've never really understood the app ecosystem.
Weren't browsers invented to simplify access to the web's varied functionalities, instead of having 50 DIFFERENT programs* to run, different for each chore, like we used to in the old DOS days?
*for that matter, I'd love to understand when/why we started calling them apps, instead of programs or executables.
Most "apps" only exist to harvest your data. (Score:2)
Whether they are glorified browser windows or not, if it's encapsulated in an "app" you can't block ads, etc. It can also refuse to run without unnecessary spyware enabled.
I hate the term app too but it's less syllables than program or executable (or application, for that matter),and people are fucking lazy. When talking to non-technical people you will practically never hear anything else at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that my natural cynicism somehow missed that apps (obviously, in hindsight) prevent you blocking ads and spyware.
I bow in respect for your superior innate suspicion of your fellow human.
It is ENTIRELY justified.
Re: (Score:2)
...I'd love to understand when/why we started calling them apps, instead of programs or executables.
Calling programs apps started at least in the 1980's. It was understood that app meant application, and no one gave it a second thought since it wasn't very pervasive. It only got annoying when Apple pretended to have invented the term and marketed it as such.
Misleading (Score:3)
This article is blatant marketing hype.
Re: (Score:2)
PWAs do spy (Score:1)
Remember when (Score:2)
Originally, Facebook, Instagram, banking, any subscription service was done by web-app. Then it became a traditional applet that opened a browser window, because "security": Which replaced a lack of privacy in a generic browser with a lack of privacy in their own app (by deliberately accessing your camera/microphone/contact-list/clipboard).
They're great (Score:1)
Progressive web Apps (Score:2)
As opposed to Conservative web apps
or as opposed to Geico or Liberty Mutual
Cringe (Score:2)
How/why are they better surveilance wise? (Score:2)
"... are less pushy about surveilling you."
I assume you're trying to imply that they can't/won't surveil you as often or much as regular apps. From one perspective yes (no access to mobile phone specific features and code), but also no (mobile apps are reviewed for data collection, but websites can do whatever they want or to be more accurate anything technically possible is allowed too).
How that fully impacts users I can't say, but I wouldn't broadly claim avoiding native applications is a good idea.
Want your cake and eat it too? (Score:2)
"[Traditional apps] come with profound downsides, including Big Tech control, privacy compromises and high development costs. It would be healthy if there were palatable alternative paths to our current app system."
There are... but monopolies are profitable. And anytime you force a large company to allow competitors (with a public/3rd party API) people scream socialism.
Personally, I think anything wildly profitable should be forced to "open up". To commoditize what could be separated. To let users change
not spy (Score:2)
How can you say PWA don't spy? They are basically websites, so anything I do on them, the server knows about it. As for storage space, this is not an issue, my 4 yo phone has about half of its storage space empty, more important in an app is to have good UI/UX, be responsive and use less RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
> How can you say PWA don't spy? They are basically websites, so anything I do on them, the server knows about it.
That was my first thought too, but it was more along the lines of "who do they think they're kidding?"
All I know PWA for (Score:2)
Unless that is what you are calling Teams and apps like that that are just browsers without address bars.
Progressive Web Apps (Score:2)
This sounds like the Windows 9x days where Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer were the same thing, letting the web browser have the ability to move or delete files, and run executables. Are you sure it's a good idea this time around?
Apple is closed to PWAs (Score:1)
Compartmentalisation. (Score:1)