Browsers are the most likely disruptor of the mobile duopoly

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Browsers and Progressive Web Apps are being debated as a potential way to break Apple and Google’s control over mobile app distribution, but opinions are sharply divided on whether the web can realistically match native apps. Supporters point to massive performance gains since early HTML5 failures, growing PWA capabilities, and regulatory pressure that could force iOS to allow real browser competition. Critics counter with technical, UX, and security limitations, Apple’s deliberate crippling of web APIs, weak monetization models, and the risk of simply swapping today’s app-store duopoly for a browser-engine monopoly dominated by Google.

PWAs vs Native Apps: Capability & UX

  • Many argue most mobile apps (text/images/buttons, basic media) could be PWAs with no major UX penalty, especially for things like ordering food or simple utilities.
  • Others counter that real-world attempts (e.g., earlier big-company HTML5 apps, some high‑profile PWAs) were slow, memory‑hungry, and hard to maintain, leading teams back to native.
  • Consensus: PWAs are viable for a large subset of use cases, but not yet a universal replacement for native apps, especially for AAA games, deeply integrated features, or very polished UX.

Performance, Power, and Technical Constraints

  • One camp claims “no technical reason” web apps must be worse; another insists HTML/CSS/JS and browser stacks impose inherent overhead, especially on battery‑constrained devices.
  • Examples include high CPU use for simple animations, higher power draw vs native, and WASM still being significantly slower than native in some workloads.
  • Others note huge performance gains since ~2010 (JS speed, APIs, WASM) and that desktops hide web inefficiency with abundant resources, whereas phones can’t.

Platform Control: Apple, Google, and Browser Limits

  • Strong criticism of Apple for: iOS browser engine lock‑in, slow or buggy implementation of web features (PWAs, storage, orientation, background tasks, push), and using this to steer developers toward the App Store.
  • Some defend Safari as modern and efficient, arguing that what’s missing is often Chrome‑only, privacy‑sensitive APIs.
  • Android is seen as more PWA‑friendly, yet many companies still ship native apps for data collection, notifications, and in‑store monetization.

Standards, APIs, and Security Concerns

  • Disputes over web APIs like Web Bluetooth and device orientation: some say missing APIs block whole PWA categories; others argue browsers are right to reject risky capabilities.
  • Tension between “free/open web” ideals and demands for DRM, screenshot blocking, and tighter control over user devices.

Discovery, Monetization, and App Stores

  • App stores provide payments, reviews, permissions summaries, and a single “place to look,” which non‑technical users rely on.
  • Some think web “app stores” are unnecessary given search, social, and link sharing; others note that curated directories and stores have repeatedly proven valuable (games stores, Linux repos).
  • Monetizing web apps is seen by some as harder without store billing; others point to subscriptions and ads as already pervasive.

Role of Regulation and Market Structure

  • Many expect antitrust and regulations (especially in the EU) to be the main disruptor: forcing browser engine choice, side‑loading, and alternative stores.
  • Concern that if PWAs win, control might simply shift from the mobile OS duopoly to a browser/Chromium monopoly.

Overall Sentiment on “Browsers as Disruptor”

  • Enthusiasts see PWAs and WASM as a credible path to weaken app‑store lock‑in and help new mobile OSes bootstrap an ecosystem.
  • Skeptics view this as déjà vu (Firefox OS, Windows Phone, early iPhone web‑app era) and doubt users, businesses, or gatekeepers will shift strongly away from native apps without structural change.