I won't download your app. The web version is a-ok

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Many users are increasingly rejecting “app-only” services, arguing that mobile websites or progressive web apps are sufficient for most tasks and avoid the tracking, storage bloat, and lock‑in that native apps often bring. Commenters describe a pattern where companies intentionally cripple mobile web experiences to drive app installs, motivated by tighter data collection, push notifications, and app‑store economics rather than user benefit. Others note generational and usage splits—some find native apps faster and more polished, especially for sensor‑heavy or offline use cases—highlighting an unresolved tension between convenience, control, and privacy on modern devices.

Overall sentiment: strong resistance to “app-only” experiences

  • Many refuse to install an app for one‑off or infrequent tasks (menus, parking, tickets, loyalty, ordering from a single restaurant).
  • Several say they will drop a product, venue, or doctor if an app is required.
  • Browser is seen as the “default client”; if the web version is crippled or missing, some take that as a red flag and walk away.

Deliberate degradation and lock‑in

  • Common claim: companies intentionally make mobile web UIs slow or broken, or block features, to funnel users into apps.
  • Examples mentioned: social media, ticketing, banking, news, job/real‑estate sites, and forums that hide content, remove features, or hard‑nag app installs on mobile.
  • Apps are seen as better for: lock‑in, pushing notifications, bypassing ad blockers, and keeping competitors out of “adjacent tabs.”

UX and performance tradeoffs

  • Some argue most native apps are faster, more responsive, and better designed than equivalent web UIs, especially for heavy or sensor‑based use (maps, messaging, smart home, GPS, payments).
  • Others note many apps are just webviews with worse UX, missing features vs desktop web, constant forced logouts, intrusive onboarding, and fragmented functionality between app and site.
  • Limited phone storage and weak hardware make large, frequently updated apps a real burden for many users.

Security, privacy, and permissions

  • Pro‑web side: browser sandboxing, easier ad/tracker blocking, and less access to contacts, location, device IDs, and background processes.
  • Pro‑app side: on mobile OSes apps are sandboxed too; stores add some review and hashing guarantees; open‑source clients can be audited and built once instead of trusting server‑delivered web code each visit.
  • Extended argument around E2EE: web clients can be silently modified per user; native audited apps are seen by some as safer for encryption. Others counter that trust and realistic threat models matter more than platform.

Generational and usage patterns

  • Older/power users tend to see phones as secondary to desktops and strongly prefer web apps.
  • Many younger users see “internet = phone apps” and may barely use browsers or understand filesystems.
  • Several commenters caution that HN‑style preferences don’t match the broader consumer base, who often prefer apps.

PWAs and platform dynamics

  • Many wish PWAs were the norm but note Apple/Google have historically constrained them and made install flows obscure.
  • Developers like PWAs for instant deployment, but report very low install rates; native apps still dominate discovery, monetization, and user expectations.