[eddieroger]

Heard the same, thought the same. Casey succumbed to the struggle I find myself dealing with all the time - he found a problem with a technological solve and solved it with technology, which is only something other technologists do or want. Like you said, Instagram has a facility to already put stickers on images for people who wish to censor their pics. If they're not using Instagram, maybe the other program can do the same, if they user even cares at all. How do you convince someone with an existing workflow to change? "Why do I need another app," they will ask you. I wish him luck and applaud the nerve to go it alone in the tech world, but I'm not sure this is a diamond waiting to be found.

[samhw]

As one of our VCs once wisely said to us: "The hardest thing is to get a consumer to install a new app. Deliver your solution any way other than its own app."

[rchaud]

That doesn't sound like it's generalizable.

You may as well say, "the hardest thing is to get a consumer to sign up for yet another service". And it is hard. But that is precisely how a new consumer app would get traction. It's not like Buzzfeed where no login is required, and the only thing that matters is ad impressions.

[Grustaf]

The point is if you can avoid making an app, that's better. Obviously if it has to be an app, then make an app.

[rchaud]

That too doesn't sound right. Every consumer app I use begs me to use their dedicated native app on mobile. Even though I'm a signed up user on the web site. The only reason they do this is because app-level surveillance and telemetry is unblockable, whereas the web allows me to block what I want.

[Grustaf]

Of course it's better for them if the CAN make you install it. Just like it's better for a company if they can convince you to sign up for something, or at least give them your email. But the point is that if you can expose your clients to your service without all that, then you should avoid introducing the hurdle, you don't want to scare anyone off.

So: make it possible to use the service without any hurdles, but _try_ to get them to agree to as much as possible.

[Cthulhu_]

Yes and no; there are a few handfuls of apps that Made It in that they are only viable as apps, the ones that people will cycle through and open up multiple times a day. It is really hard to get to that point though. I mean the last ones I can think of that people installed were TikTok (similar appeal as Instagram, maybe Snapchat) and FaceApp (short lived gimmick).

[reaperducer]

I think the app gold rush is over. We've passed the time when every company "needs" an app.

Even marketing managers can look at their phones and realize, "Why do I have all of these apps? I don't even know what half of these things are for anymore?"

I recently moved, and my new building has separate apps for: Package notifications, dry cleaning pick up/drop off, paying rent, the speakers in the ceilings, building bulletin board, reserving a common space, reserving the freight elevators, maintenance requests, pet care service, doorman notifications, self-parking, valet parking, and probably a bunch more that I've forgotten because I'd rather let my wife deal with that stuff than overwhelm myself with apps.

And that's just the building. Nevermind grocery delivery, each individual utility, food delivery, restaurants, and on and on and on.

My wife is a big app person. Hates using mobile web sites. She has at least 200 apps on her phone, all obsessively organized in tiny folders. But even she has started using the web versions of things, just because having so many apps has finally become harder than clicking a bookmark in Safari.

[spoonjim]

I have hundreds or maybe even thousands of apps on my phone but don’t scroll through them. I always use search or Siri to open them

[freedomben]

I agree. I hesitate to use myself as a data point because I'm very sensitive to privacy and security issues (and thus often refuse to use apps that don't have a web version), but it seems like there are a lot more web options than there used to be.

Apps definitely have a place for some use cases, but for most they just have so many downsides, especially invasive privacy violations. I think of running an app as similar to running some unknown/close source binary as root on my machine. Why give an app access to a whole bunch of APIs that can be used to mine me for data when it isn't needed?

Cross platform usability is also a big thing. Any apps that require typing are much better done on a laptop or desktop with a keyboard. Why should I be forced to use my tiny phone screen and super awkward mobile keyboard to fill out a form when I have a perfectly good laptop right next to me? Why should I have to run a specific operating system (apple or android) in order to be able to fill out the form?

Few people I know still get excited about apps. The curiosity and fascination is largely over. Unless there's a compelling reason, people don't want to install "another app"

[scarface74]

I keep reading about websites providing more privacy. What exactly can apps do to invade your privacy on iOS without your explicit permission?

[rchaud]

Just curious, can your wife tell the difference between a native mobile app and an app that's mostly a webview?

[freedomben]

Not GP, but no mine can't. She replaced the facebook app with Slim Social (which is basically FB in a web view) and barely noticed a difference between native and web view.

[vincentmarle]

I would take "VC advice" with a big grain of salt...

[nradov]

That doesn't seem so wise. Consumers install a lot of apps. On the Google Play store, even some obscure apps have huge download numbers.