[troupo]

> well Apple made PWA's harde

So. Let me get this straight. Android is dominant in the world. In first world countries it's 50/50 (though it's 69% in the EU). There are also desktops where Chrome is dominant.

And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs[1] that are the future as everyone claims, because somehow Apple prevents you from building them for those dominant platforms.

[1] Don't mention Figma or VSCode before you also mention how much effort went into implementing them.

[talldayo]

> And yet, somehow, there are still no amazing PWAs

There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Mastodon, Pinterest, Uber, Trivago, Starbucks, Dominos, Stitchfix, Adam & Eve or Hotels.com are usable online. You specifically complain because none of these apps are killer features to you. I don't know what to say; clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify.

People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology. Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way to make them infeasible alternatives to a first-party service. It's not my fault that your purview of the technology is arbitrarily limited.

[troupo]

> There are plenty of great PWAs. People bring them up on a regular basis and you piss and moan when we say

1. Funny how "on a regular basis" only comes after prodding these people multiple times, pointing out Android and desktop exists, and wading through numerous complaints how no, it's not true, and Apple prevents PWAs from existing.

Even in this discussion instead of naming PWAs right off the bat you first pretended that Android isn't dominant, and completely ignored Chrome dominance

2. It's also funny how "the amazing great PWAs" are inevitably not that great, are they?

Instead of being great and amazing they are just... "usable online". Each of those significantly much better as native apps. Without fail most of them would be much faster, fluid, less janky and resource-hungry if they were just static sites with links instead of ... whatever they are. Oh yes, they are usable.

> clearly they exist and you're trying to minimize the number of apps that technically qualify.

"Technically qualify". That's a great turn of phrase you used there.

So, we went from "boohoo limits the viability of non-native apps on its mobile devices" to "usable online" and "technically qualify".

I, for one, don't want to use apps that "technically qualify". I want actual fast fluid non-janky and non-resource hungry apps that are a joy to use even if they are the most mundane apps out there. That is precisely why I keep asking: given that Android dominates mobile space, and Chrome dominates desktop platforms, how come the best examples you can come up with barely "technically qualify"?

> People refuse to take you seriously when you repeat this same tautology.

People refuse to accept PWA fanatics when they keep saying grand words with very little to back them app. All you can do is complain about Apple.

> Of course PWAs aren't popular on platforms that deliberately go out of their way

You'd think that PWAs would be great and amazing on platforms that don't have any real or perceived limitations. And yet, all you can come up with is "usable online" and "technically qualify". But sure, do keep complaining how it's Apple who's preventing you from building great native-like experiences on the web.

[0xRake]

trolll