[badsectoracula]

> ... seems to have taken a step backward with mobile apps, and replaced with an endless need for vendor lock in. It's great for business, but as a user, it feels really restrictive. As a developer, it's not great either.

But isn't using a web app that stores its data to a remote server and handles upgrades a method of vendor (in this case developer) lock in? As a user you are 100% reliant on the developer, both for your data but also in their mercy when it comes to upgrades (imagine developers changing how their UI works to a way you dislike - my aunt every now and then calls me because something went wrong but what really went wrong was Google making slight changes to Gmail or the Google home page that confused her - or, even worse, starting to require more resources than your computer can handle but you cannot do something as simple - with native apps - as to just keep using the older version).

[osrec]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the issue I have is with the monopolistic aspect of an app store... Basically, it's one or two monolithic companies that control everything and determine the rules because they make the base operating systems. With regards to updates etc, I think similar issues apply to native apps - e.g. devs can change the backend, which can break older front ends. I'm sure you can eventually have the concept of a versioned web app as well, much like versioned APIs, and users can decide if they wish to upgrade.

[badsectoracula]

TBH i was mainly thinking about desktop applications where app stores are not really a thing (beyond Steam) and - at least in Windows - you can still use applications written a couple of decades ago while the companies that made them have long dissolved.

I agree about the gatekeeperness aspect of app stores too :-). At least with Android there is the ability to install APK files, though it isn't very user friendly.