[rdale]

Dead right. It's people with pitchforks outside the Bastille. It's starving people rioting to reclaim common land taken as 'enclosures' by the rich people.

I somehow think that saying something like "Relax. For fuck's sake." isn't going to help.

[gearoidoc]

Spot on.

"It's starving people rioting to reclaim common land taken as 'enclosures' by the rich people." == Complaining about having to click a cancel button on a mobile browser.

[rdale]

You've completely missed the point. At the moment we have a free web and we can use a variety of browsers to access it.

If instead we can only access the web via apps and those app are controlled by the likes of Apple or Google, then we don't have a free web anymore. Maybe today the apps are free (as in beer), but maybe tomorrow they won't be. We would no longer be in charge and the web would have been appropriated by business interests.

[gearoidoc]

Huh? The original post wasn't about bringing a walled garden approach to the web; it was about modals encouraging visitors to download an app.

I don't think you need to worry about only accessing the web via apps - it just won't happen.

FWIW, I abhor the popups in question but I can understand a company's decision to add them to their site. However, the way to stop this pattern is by showing decision makers statistics that prove they don't work (if that is true of course). The blog in question just seems like one big hissy fit - not the most convincing of arguments.

[rdale]

"I don't think you need to worry about only accessing the web via apps - it just won't happen."

That's all right then.