[dpe82]

Not if the content is standard text/images/video and the app gets in the way of consuming the content - which is what a user wants to do when they click on a link to an article.

Can an app be superior because it allows other types of content that can't be done well via web technologies? Perhaps. Can an app help with content discovery? Perhaps. But when a user clicks on a link to standard text/images/video they're not looking for either of those.

If you want to advertise your app because it provides other features that a user may find valuable, that's fine. Advertise it like any other product that runs against your content. If nobody uses it there's likely a good reason. Don't force it on them.

[arn]

My point being is that your original opinion seems entirely predicated on the fact that Apps are worse experiences than mobile web. I think this is clearly wrong. For web-apps, I think native-apps can function much better. I guess we'll never ever see a Vidmaker app?

But that's all beside the point... you are so quick to argue against me, you don't even see that we agree. Re-read my original post. As I said, the execution sucks. You want to inform your audience that there's an app option, but most of the implementations suck and are too intrusive.

[dpe82]

You're right, I shouldn't be so absolutist. Most of my strong reaction is to sites that abuse users by getting in the way and pushing them into an app that doesn't add anything. I guess I'm crabby about it. Don't take it personally.