[chkhd]

> The entire future of Application Development is at stake.

Since when does application development equal web application development? this is a narrow-minded view.

> stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile.

I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need.

> Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases.

This really needs some sources. To me, it reads like something akin to a snake oil ad piece right now.

[Bilal_io]

> I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need.

I am glad for you that you don't need them. But we'd like to at least have the choice.

> snake oil

You dislike web apps, that's okay. But you sound prejudiced.

[chkhd]

> ..you sound prejudiced.

I am providing critique here, the burden of proof is on whoever wrote the bold claim that application development is web development (speculation) and it is a better way of development (speculation).

> I am glad for you that you don't need them. But we'd like to at least have the choice.

I would not have a gripe with the article if it were the only thing it alluded to.

[Nevermark]

I think some of that "proof" goes beyond "web". I.e. there is a way to deliver apps without going through gatekeepers, but a major gatekeeper is blocking that.

Innovation being actively blocked today, includes streaming games and other apps, cloud hosted apps, etc. And we will never know how much innovation is being blocked if there is always a gatekeeper.

This innovation freeze isn't just about "web" technology. It is blocking whole business models today.

And there is no reason "web" technologies, when free to improve, can't acheive parity or near parity with native apps in the future, with regard to performance, security, aesthetics, etc.

"Web" is just a historical starting place, not an impediment to future capabilities.

[chkhd]

Open, widely adopted standards are a good thing. Widely supported ways of delivering applications written using those standards is also a good thing.

But as a counterpoint to the rest, web technologies have been free to achieve said parity on the desktop for a long time now. Have they? Do they provide _better_ experience for the user? or do they neglect the user whenever they can in return for _faster_ and _easier_ cross-platform development and ability to leverage existing web developers?

[Nevermark]

The diversity of development environments, languages, etc. that sit on top of web tech such as HTML and WebAssembly provide tools for everything from quick and dirty to highly engineered code.

For instance we have PHP (easy to learn, but weak typing, arguably unclear design philosophy) on one end of the spectrum, and Rocket for Rust (which enforces memory discipline to provide highly reliable concurrency and high performance) at the other end.

[candiddevmike]

> I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need.

I would bet in the future most apps are web apps, either JavaScript PWAs or WASM. The economics of cross platform development are too great. I think most users won't care, or may even appreciate this due to the size savings (a PWA today is almost always a lot smaller than a fat app on my experience).

As a developer, I would rather write web apps that can use standard web interfaces for camera/files/icons/notifications than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff, and as a bonus I'll get a lot of accessibility benefits for free.

[MobileVet]

> I would bet in the future most apps are web apps, either JavaScript PWAs or WASM

People have been saying this since 2004 when I started working in mobile. Only difference was the tech that would make it happen, it was WAP then.

There will always be a place for native apps, be it on a phone or a computer.

[chkhd]

> I would bet..

That is speculation on user behalf, isn't it? I am a user and I care.

> ..than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff..

It is a rational argument. However, Chrome is a platform too. More and more of the web only works (well) in Chrome. More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is.

[go_prodev]

> I am a user and I care.

You care how an app is developed and delivered to your device?

The web offers a native experience in most cases, sometimes even better. Besides, giving PWAs more abilities doesn't remove native apps.

> More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is.

It's pretty ironic that you support Apple in locking down what you can do and apps you can run and what Safari supports, while blaming Chrome for being the dominant browser.

[chkhd]

> You care how an app is developed and delivered to your device?

Why is that so shocking? The moment when users stop caring about how stuff works you get the very situation the article is complaining about.

>The web offers a native experience in most cases, sometimes even better. Besides, giving PWAs more abilities doesn't remove native apps.

Why are you telling me what my experience is like?

Do I think that you should have a fair chance at experiencing apps in your preferred way? Yes.

Do I think that your way is actually better based on the points made in this article? No.

[jahewson]

Even so, a web app is much better than no app. The unit economics of re-building a complex desktop web app in a different technology, in a highly-constrained medium for use by a relative handful of users aren’t great.

[mdoms]

Just because you personally don't want web apps doesn't make it ok for a company to unilaterally hamstring an entire arm of technology for their own benefit.

[neya]

"Anyone who doesn't use technologies I don't use is selling snake oil and is wasting time"