> The web browser is very, very, very powerful software for applications, and the cost of accessing that power is going down seemingly every day.
It's wild how much easier it is to build things that harness web technology these days. I'm building features on top of three.js and offline storage and SSE and WebAudio and WebAssembly multiple times per week these days. I used to tinker with some of those maybe once or twice a year.
Why three.js? Your LLM will do fine without it and be able to optimize further for your particular use case without being stopped by three.js architecture that may or may not fit your project.
Ask your LLM, "Can we remove three.js so that we can re-architect the graphics system to be more optimized for our specific use case?" and see what it comes back with.
But yeah, it turns out Claude Opus 5.5 is perfectly capable of 3D modeling in Vanilla JS + WebGL without Three.js.
In eyeballing the code I find the Three.js slightly easier to understand myself, but I rarely look at the code for these 3D projects so that isn't a particularly big deal.
I don't know your prompt but I'd suggest also adding things like "use best GPU practices" and "use techniques AAA games use to achieve the best performance and best visuals", "make it beautiful like a AAA game" etc...
Also, comparing, the three.js version downloaded 395k representing 1.6meg of data. The raw version downloaded 109k representing 200k of data. You listed the three.js version is as smaller but it's not smaller, it had to download three.js
I made an app+DSL for making 3D things with Opus 5 that did a pretty good job without three.js: https://fab.ooer.com/ (setting the depth of field to about 0.3 and then switching Quality to 'traced' looks really nice.)
I had Claude do a raymarched game with rust-gpu (initially Futhark) + webgpu + wasm.
It definitely ran terribly, but it was surprisingly good at modeling with SDFs
That's my experience too, except that I'm not using three.js, just WebGL. At this very moment I'm trying to elicit an in-browser machine-vision app that records go games on a go board if you mount your cellphone on a tripod over the board, with the idea of integrating it with an Emscriptened KataGo to give kibitzers real-time feedback. This would have been insanely ambitious for me three months ago, and now I'm hoping I have it in good enough shape to test at the go club tonight.
> So take a look at Simon Willison’s new web-based browser 3D game, Battle Drones. He’s hosting it on GitHub. He wrote it himself. He’s not a games builder.
I checked the repo, and it is written by Claude. Does this count as writing it himself?
Travis Kalanick did the work there. When If I get into my buddy's Tesla and the computer drives, I say Elon's driving. In my other friend's car with a Comma AI, I say geohot is driving.
For anyone having a hard time following the comments or mentality: Someone explained in a HN comment a few weeks ago in a comment which has helped clarify in my mind: Web (And especially SAAS) developers make up a large portion of HN users. They use and love frontend frameworks, Node, NPM, and using web tech for many tasks, as a first line of tools.
You pretend as if this is a totally alien concept, while you yourself use HN in a browser. Literally everyone uses a browser. The whole point of the post is that you don't have to ask your users to do anything other than click on a URL. It is obnoxious to act like you can't understand this.
Because when something is running on my machine i have more control over it and greater ability to inspect what it does. Usually i also put stuff in my machine from reputable sources (e.g. Linux repositories). And for the most part i prefer opensource software that i (or some LLM i point the code at) can check if it does something obviously naughty.
Yes, web apps are fine if i don't trust the source much. As an example i use the web-based version of Discord in a Firefox tab instead of the native version.
FWiW I've made my choice, I stopped using Reddit on a regular basis more than a decade ago, and used old.reddit for occasional reference and link following until recently (the account/password login requirement) since which I've not been back.
Actually it is very true. And as i wrote in the rest of the comment after the part you quoted, i a) generally install stuff from reputable sources and b) use opensource software.
There are some people who exclusively (or mostly) use open source software. There are practical and philosophical reasons; I am not sure if the parent poster is one, but it is likely from context.
You mean "go to the installation page and choose the correct OS/version, download and install". Compare that to "Click here: https://tinylittleoffice.com/"
The computer already comes with an office suite installed in most cases. And I hope you don't suggest that tiny little office compares, even though it's very neat.
And the place you get your app from usually automatically knows which OS you are on.
And also most web apps of any sophistication demand that you register an account to use them, click the verify email link etc
The developer tooling for the web, all the way down to ECMAScript is awful, but the web platform is powerful. Using node, npm, etc. for anything not targeting the web is an anti-pattern unless your team only understands that tooling.
And on top, most of them know nothing of programming outside their technical domain and could not possible imagine that development can be built on sane and stable foundations.
I am developing a game and right now got iOS, macOS, Android, web responsive, Rust for Linux and Rust for Windows versions ready. Six different source folders for the same game. It is exhausting even with the help of modern tools
If we could use just one tech stack providing native parity without drawbacks for all of them that would be the final achievement in software development, but I still think we are decades away from that
I am afraid with LLMs as good as they are, there is no more incentive to build a high fidelity cross platform. Cross platforms are very hard to pull off with high fidelity, and is going to be a moving target. With LLMs, we can have something similar with even less coding.
I know it tends to be an unpopular opinion, but to me the Web is too much, really.
Many people (me included) like to complain about how systemd is trying to overtake everything, but browsers are a lot worse than that. Even if I can realistically choose my OS today, I have to run most apps in a browser. And the browser landscape is not that nice in terms of freedom: Google controls it through Chromium, Apple manages to force their users to use Webkit, and Firefox... is marginal.
More than that: I can realistically assemble my own OS, that is actually feasible. The one tricky component that I will need to integrate, though, is the browser. And the browser landscape, again, is totally controlled by BigTech.
Pushing for webapps is pushing to lock us into Chromium, controlled by Google. I don't see what's great in shipping a copy of Chromium embedded in a webapp and calling that a "desktop app".
I want control and diversity. The Web is far from there, and for some reason people love that.
And there can only be very few browsers because of all the features they have to bit-perfectly support. Even Microsoft gave up and ceded their power to Google - Windows comes with repackaged Chrome.
Back when a web browser meant parsing tags and deciding where to place floating images, you could reasonably write your own. Now there's just too much of it. Even without JavaScript.
That was pre AI. Nowadays lots of browsers popping up with AI guidance like Ladybird and Blitz, both of which have experienced developers leading them rather than AI slop.
Native apps have their place, but the average everyday user is becoming more and more hostile to the idea of installing an application and just using their existing web browser to accomplish the same task. I know I would rather use my limited SSD space for photos, games, and movies, than 100 different apps. Also supporting hundreds of different pieces of hardware isn't economical for most projects. The web solves both problems in that it gets your app into the hands of users immediately and you can delegate the responsibility of supporting various hardware to the browser vendors.
Google also doesn't own the web contrary to popular belief (Even if they have an outsized amount of influence). The web is an open standard, anyone could hack together their own browser if they wanted to with enough time and effort. That amount prior to the AI era was so large, only a shop like Google, Firefox, or Apple could put in the time and effort required to make one, and the amount of time of effort that requires is falling significantly day-by-day due to LLM generated code.
Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser? The web is nice for loading websites, obviously you shouldn't have to install one app per website. But anything more complex than a website should be a program you install.
> hostile to the idea of installing an application
When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use". If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
> isn't economical
Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
> Google also doesn't own the web contrary to popular belief (Even if they have an outsized amount of influence).
Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
> When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use".
The big distinction is security policy. There is a tremendous amount of things you can do in the browser that you cannot do on the desktop if you do not own the computer.
That is an interesting point, but I think that moving everything to the browser is a workaround, rather than the elegant solution.
When you do not own the computer, I assume you are prevented from doing some stuff for security reasons. The problem being that you could easily break your computer, and your company does not trust you not to do it. But I would argue it's a security model issue on the OS.
Typically, it is not an issue on mobile OSes, because apps are sandboxed by default. And users generally have fewer issues installing mobile apps than installing desktop software, it seems?
There's also that the fact that computing historically have two models as far as managements goes: a) The mainframe model where users have reduced right and there's a set of administrators that are responsible for choosing programs and configuring them b) and the microprocessor model where it's a tool owned by the user and programs acting on the behalf of the users.
The main issue comes from the mixing of those two models where users own a computer, but vendors keep thinking of them as clients for their services. No longer content to use the network as the boundary, they also want a boundary inside the computer. Discord is not that fundamentally different from IRC, and people usually had no reason to sandbox their IRC clients, but you always have to worry about Discord doing some nefarious updates or abusing its role.
Ironically, though, when people are doing everything in the browser, being unable to do things on the desktop isn't much of a security benefit. In theory, restrictions on cross-domain data sharing are supposed to make things better. But we still see plenty of browser vulnerabilities, XSS hacks, and various sorts of trickery that allow people to exploit web apps in their own way. Moreover, a sizable part of the security is illusory anyway, because the web apps themselves are trying to spy on you in a multitude of ways.
> Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser?
Yes. My tab count regularly exceeds 100.
> If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
You're confusing volume of applications with time spent on applications. These users have 2-3 tasks they're willing to download and install an app for, but chances are you will never develop an app billions of users will have open for most of the day, and most users don't want to download an app to do things outside of Instagram, TikTok etc.
> Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
Invisible hand of the free market tends to take care of that. And I say that as someone who leans liberal progressive when it comes to economic policies. I doubt the 1.0 versions of many "hand-crafted" apps would hold up to today's standards either.
I really don't understand how some people think it's possible to craft a "perfect" version 1.0 of anything and then release it out into the wild with 0 problems. This was an issue BEFORE vibe coding. Does anyone here remember the first release of Cyberpunk 2077? Software doesn't magically improve by itself, it has to run into real world friction and feedback from users to get anywhere. Even if that feedback is just "this app is vibe-coded slop".
> Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
Yes. "Chaos is a ladder". Instead of bemoaning the state of the internet, it's more productive to find opportunities in the current chaos.
What do you call a webapp? To me, Gmail is a webapp. Google Docs is a webapp. A video game running in the browser is a webapp. Outlook running in the browser is a webapp. Google Meet is a webapp.
HN is NOT a webapp. Google Search is NOT a webapp. A blog is NOT a webapp. Those are "websites" (again, my wording for clarity).
My stance is that the web is great for websites, not for webapps. Apps should run on the OS, not in the browser.
> most users don't want to download an app to do things outside of Instagram, TikTok etc.
But again, what do they do outside of Instagram, TikTok, etc? Almost nothing, right? And most of that nothing is probably done on websites, not webapps.
Sure, they don't want to install an app to order something on Temu/Zalando. But those should be websites anyway.
> Invisible hand of the free market tends to take care of that.
Invisible hand doesn't work in a market ruled by quasi monopolies.
> I really don't understand how some people think it's possible to craft a "perfect" version 1.0 of anything and then release it out into the wild with 0 problems.
In good approximation, nobody thinks that. That's why you can update software. Which is done in webapps in a way, though brute-force style: instead of updating the webapp when it changes, you re-download it every time.
> Instead of bemoaning the state of the internet, it's more productive to find opportunities in the current chaos.
My point is: "don't write webapps, write native apps". There are plenty of opportunities there.
> Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
I would if those apps didn't intentionally make the web version worse than the app. There was a small amount of time where TikTok was under scrutiny from the US government and not available for download. Somehow, during that time the website worked just fine, but once the deals were signed and the app was available for download again, somehow the app became too complex to work on the web. Funny how that works.
to be clear to everyone running into this: we've had libertarian software politics like this for decades. "i don't want any software i cant drown in my bathtub and then also make myself again, preferrably still in my bathtub". or something like that.
i find it ridiculously uncompelling. it's always felt not like a well formed grounded way to be. it's amazing that we have really good capable platforms that can help us. especially when there are multi-polar orgs like w3c and what and lately wicg that serve as stewarts, that watch over these platforms. when there are often ietf tie ins. when there are projects like interop that help move the platform forward across browsers, agree on the baseline.
what's so viciously deeply libertarian coded to me about this assessment is it's me me me me me. what can i do? what can i make? what software can i build? with some notes of fear to tell you google is bad. beware google. i realize the anti-google sentiment is super strong in the world, but after being around the web for decades i can hardly say what thanks and joy and celebration i have to google for building the ultimate existential hedge against everyone else: a free platform for the free world that runs free on endless devices, that is the only free platform the world has ever seen with any success. that has gotten vastly better.
i think at this point and for half a decade plus on HN the "I know it tends to be an unpopular opinion" is thanks for the web and google. i think i'm in the minority for my thanks. i think the outrage and dismisal and scare words is by far the most popular stance.
but what's on the other hand? native apps, on native platforms? those things that run on 20% of computers, that you have to be a licensed paid up authorized developer to ship to, that have very long queues for submitting your app to to maybe some day have it approved perhaps?
the libertarian view is what you can do. yeah, the super small, the do it yourself. it's a fantasy.
the mature societal view is what we can do. it's having this permissionless platform that anyone can build software for. it's having Project Fugu trying to make that platform competitive, good, capable: giving hte native platform a constant run for the money. so that we all can benefit. so that any dev can make an app. it's "extensible web manifesto", where the web doesn't bake in particular flavors of software development, so we can choose jquery or backbone or react or vue or solid or svelte or lit, so society can iterate and keep refining and re-deciding what surface they want to program to, what models fit them, what they want to program against: you don't see that with native platforms! you get what they are and that's mostly that!
you get such a wide ranging low level platform, such freedom to use it as you please on the web. but much much much more, everyone else can enjoy it too. it's a civilized platform, the only civilized one where we have control, where we the world has say. if you don't like the native platforms, well, you can remake something else, but it'll be you and your couple friends perhaps amid the 7b people who are still using either the web or what big companies gave them.
the libertarian sees what they can do. but i'm really interested in what we can do. and there's nothing like the web for this. as developers, as users, as users in-between user-scripting or writing extensions: for everyone, as the article says:
> and the cost of accessing that power is going down seemingly every day.
That's... uh... extremely biased and quite limited? Respectfully, it sounds like you haven't been around the internet for so long ("half a decade" sounds like you're pretty young :-) ).
First, Google did not give us the web. Google gave us a good search engine, then Gmail, then worked very hard towards becoming the quasi-monopoly it is by killing the competition in a way or another. There are countless examples of monopolistic behaviours by Google in... a lot more than half a decade.
Second, I get that you are into web, and hence you can mention "jquery or backbone or react or vue or solid or svelte or lit", but you should really look into what exists outside of the web. There are tons of ways (and even languages!) to write desktop apps or mobile apps!
> where the web doesn't bake in particular flavors of software development
On the web, you do what the browser allows you to do. Just like on an OS. Turns out that there are many more OSes than browsers, many of which are not maintained by BigTech.
You think the web doesn't bake in particular flavours of software development? How do you do multithreading? How do you open a port and receive network packets? In order to run code in a language other than Javascript, you had to wait years for WebAssembly to become usable, and even then, it's not like it was life-changing: you may be able to compile python to WebAssembly and run it in a browser, but... really?
> native apps, on native platforms? those things that run on 20% of computers, that you have to be a licensed paid up authorized developer to ship to, that have very long queues for submitting your app to to maybe some day have it approved perhaps?
Have you ever written a native app? Like, a program that runs on Windows, or Linux, or macOS, or BSD, or Android? Sure, iOS is annoying as hell, but you have mainstream choice* apart from it. What's my alternative to Chrome? A rebranded Chromium? Or maybe Firefox, but still I need to run Chrome once in a while because your great web perfection routinely fails to run on Firefox.
Really, go have a look at what's out there! If you are grateful for Google in 2026, it suggests that there is actually a lot for you to discover. That's exciting!
> In order to run code in a language other than Javascript, you had to wait years for WebAssembly to become usable,
GWT, CoffeeScript, examples go on and on and on. You did have to wait years for wasm. But also, it's fine and in some ways far far better that there are de facti languages for the web, and that's been a huge part of why it's so uniquely rfc8890 compliant, in ways that no mere platform has ever been.
There's more out there alright, but it's still this libertarian what can I do. It's the developer centric view. None of these other platforms improve what can we do. None of them have the ambition to be available on tens of billions of devices. None of them are connected by default, networked, in anywhere near the way the web is. None of them have multi-polar governance & cooperation.
I'm very glad there's other things happening. But also their ambition has been very low. The web remains ridiculously different than every other way to run processes, while everything else (except Erlang/beam) clusters very very tightly around writing single processes that need libraries to build up to http or websocket or grpc or quic. There's been a tragic failure to think anywhere near as big as the web, to develop models where something declarative like the page leads the charge, grounds the programming model in something material, constructible, clear.
Google as far I'm concerned did make the web, added heat and pressure to keep going, to not stop here, to make it fast, gave us examples of use like (via acquisition I believe) Google Maps, and Gmail. We would still have had a web, but the parallel reality if they hadn't been finding browsers, spec writers, dev tools: it's a ghastly impoverished sad world, one where native apps actually look like a good choice for the world.
Web-tech is basically user-interface tech. Its super-power is that you can commit your GUI to be on the web, while the servers can be implemented with anything. The web-gui must have the most users world-wide, largely because all you need to install isss a wweb-browser and you get access to unlimited applications.
Any application can have a web-GUI, so why not have it, and they do, because that allows more people to use the app, with the standard conventions. Once you learn the basic functionalities of the browser (like back-button etc.) you can benefit from that knowledge with any app.
This starts to look like the good old OSI-model thinking. GUI is one layer, and like other layers it can be standardised.
- Signal (not a web app, for good reason, though frankly I'd be thrilled if it lived in a browser tab anyway as an app being served to localhost)
- The occasional PDF viewer for PDFs I'm working on (anything loaded from the web gets viewed in the in-browser PDF viewer, but when I'm creating presentations or papers or similar, I have a terminal and a PDF viewer both half-maximized)
We're rebuilding Google Maps on the Web, and the Web only with https://cartes.app.
The main problem we're struggling with is mobile OSes' will to hide the possibility of installing Web app on our devices, and deactiving things like the vibration API. Not the Web itself.
WEb-tech is basically user-interface tech. Its super-power is that you can commit your GUI to be on the web, while the servers can be implemented with anything. The web-gui must have the most users world-wide, largely because all you need to install isss a wweb-browser and you get access to unlimited applications.
Any application can have a web-GUI, so why not have it, and they do, because that allows more people to use the app, with the standard conventions. Once you learn the basic functionalities of the browser (like back-button etc.) you can benefit from that knowledge with any app.
> the multiplayer-over-audio thing is a first for an RTS as far as I can tell
Because it's fun, but that's all it is. I had a class at university decades ago where the goal was to transmit data between two computers over audio (and the sound was unpleasant). It's not a novel idea, it's just not something that should be done other than for learning or fun.
FWIW with WebXR it's not "just" 2D or 3D with WebGL, no it is immersive content (i.e VR or AR) on ALL platforms, including the very latest Steam Frame.
25 years ago well over 95% of users would have been on windows, and there is no chance in hell you'll ever convince me that modern web development is as easy as Visual Basic was for whipping up UIs back in the day.
That AI is making it easier is happenstance, it makes generating UIs in anything easier.
Visual Basic had a massive advantage in that the window would always be the same size, or at least the same aspect ratio.
You just placed controls at absolute coordinates and they worked. When you ran the program it always looked exactly the same as in the editor. Later Windowses could scale it up by a constant factor for high-DPI displays.
In hindsight it's an excellent use of the KISS principle. We didn't need layout managers. Yes the window couldn't be maximised, but so be it, this was fine for many windows. If you did want that then you had to recalculate the widget positions yourself.
Exemplary of this style, I think, is the Windows 95-98 display settings window. The one every kid discovered because it was quickly accessible by right clicking the desktop and selecting "properties".
Yesish… VB is easier for spinning up an interface but it also offers less creative flexibility than the current web platform.
The other side of that coin is training. You can train people on VB in far less time. Most people writing JavaScript for a living have absolutely no idea what they are doing. Most of these people are completely reliable on React to put text on screen and then other languages at absolutely every opportunity. While there is amazing stuff coming out of a select few start ups and many open source projects, those people are not the typical corporate software developer.
I think a large part of the "creative flexibility" of the web platform is a bug, not a feature. It makes it fun for web designers, but a pain for users. I would much rather not have to navigate the various design choices of each separate web app, and instead use consistent systemwide UI elements whose appearance is decided by me via system settings.
Most of the problems we have with online security, privacy, tracking, etc., are the result of the rapid, irresponsible and sometimes infantile expansion of capabilities of the simple web browser.
Canvas? Resolutions? Sound drivers? web-usb ?!
We’re giving up something very valuable when we “improve” html or “enhance” the browser.
I think I might want to move that forward a tiny bit...to maybe 2000 ~ 2005; but no further...but i get your point, and you're NOT wrong!
> Most of the problems we have with online security, privacy, tracking, etc., are the result of the rapid, irresponsible and sometimes infantile expansion of capabilities of the simple web browser.
While I am so impressed by some functions that modern web browsers can do, and how creative some people can get...I'm with you!
> Canvas? Resolutions? Sound drivers? web-usb ?!
Like 20% of the cool - and i'll add advanced - functions that modern browsers can achieve is really impressive! But, i think they *should* only be used for like 20% (or the minority) use cases...Whereas the rest of 80% functionality should be as basic as hell! A browser started as a document viewer, and we've strayed soooo far from that! And worse, since everybody wants to put apps into the browser, now browsers have to become the "operating system" for everything. If things ran smooth and simple, and every web page was not full of 500MB worth of crap, then maybe a browser as an operating system for most functions might be ok...but, nope. That's not the reality we live in. People keep jamming in all sorts of functions into the browser - because they can - so, things will continue to deteriorate. We can fight to backtrack this reality, or create an alternative (perhaps retro sort of) reality - e.g. Gemini capsules, neuvo BBS, etc., or we can opt out and go offline as much as possible. Lately, I've been dabbling tons more in the latter 2, and I feel much happier.
But unlike the year of the Linux desktop (any year now!), the promise of the Web as the app platform of the future seems to recede ever further into the distance.
The web is the app platform of today. Many, many things that would have been local applications are now web apps. Document editing, email, chat, collaboration...
Fuck no. Native apps are _invariably_ worse than well-designed webapps: no tabs, no bookmarks, no copy/paste, deep links are usually broken, no ability to open multiple apps side-by-side.
I don't think I know even a single exception outside the hardware-heavy games or AR/VR.
I've seen some bone-headed opinions on HN before but this may take the cake...
> no tabs
Brother what are you even talking about? Tabbed applications predate the WWW.
> no bookmarks
Bookmarks are not a part of web apps, they're part of your browser (Which get this: Is a native app!)
> no copy/paste
Again, what are you smoking? Try this if you're on Windows: Open the Start Menu, then type notepad. See that menu bar up at the top? Click where it says Edit. What do you think the copy and paste options there do?
> deep links are usually broken
Okay, I'll grant you this one, deep links generally aren't a thing on native apps. But a native app is a thing that runs locally on your computer. What the hell would you be linking to?
> no ability to open multiple apps side-by-side
Not only can you open apps side-by-side, you can actually open them on top of each other.
Just because you don't know how to use your computer doesn't mean this functionality doesn't exist.
> Brother what are you even talking about? Tabbed applications predate the WWW.
And most native apps don't have them, especially on mobile.
> Bookmarks are not a part of web apps, they're part of your browser (Which get this: Is a native app!)
And? Which native apps have bookmarks?
Perhaps Apple Maps? Nope. Photos? Nope.
> Again, what are you smoking? Try this if you're on Windows: Open the Start Menu, then type notepad. See that menu bar up at the top? Click where it says Edit. What do you think the copy and paste options there do?
Open the Notepad and copy the text from the menu bar.
> Not only can you open apps side-by-side, you can actually open them on top of each other.
Not with mobile apps. And not with apps like Music.
> Just because you don't know how to use your computer doesn't mean this functionality doesn't exist.
It's funny to hear stupid takes and then ask these stupid takers to show the examples on their phones. Go on, open your phone and try to view the mail in multiple tabs.
I'm hoping that more native apps get rewritten as web apps so they can stay in a browser sandbox where they belong. "Fortunately", we'll probably both get all the slop we "want".
Yeah I find it interesting that HN's love of performance seems to overpower their love of security. Especially since nearly everyone here has better hardware than average people.
I do not enjoy running random strangers' Rust on my machine unless it's sitting in a VM and probably also a container, at which point the performance benefit is gone anyways.
I recently moved all of the desktop apps I reasonably could to browser tabs and have been quite happy with it.
Oh and don't forget how easily you can modify the source. With a simple user script or extension I can modify your website to behave exactly how I want it to without recompiling.
It's largely because when Electron first came out the browser app platform (the API availability, performance, etc) was still quite thin and Electron was quite slow. HN just got stuck in this echo that web browsers are very inefficient and have no benefits while native apps are so much better. Java had the same echo for a long time on nerd forums because the JVM was a lot slower than native compiled apps for the first few years of its development.
In practice since then, browser-based apps ended up eating a lot of the demand for native apps and the web browser as a platform ended up displacing a lot of native apps, but the echo has stayed around here with little grounding. As such the distribution, security, and performance posture for browser and mobile apps has become a lot better while native app toolkits have lagged behind.
There's certainly a possibility that agentic development will make native development "cheap" again and encourage a lot more of it. But the web platform's security posture is much more well fleshed out at this point so I'm not sure.
Electron also papered over the problem that browsers weren't evergreen, so if you ran in the user's browser, you might not have support for current web APIs you want to depend on.
Most browsers are evergreen and updated frequently now, to the point that that no longer seems like an issue.
> Yeah I find it interesting that HN's love of performance seems to overpower their love of security
I don't think we should necessarily want to live in a world where the browser is the only way to achieve sandboxing. The various flavours of chroot jails are gradually gaining traction to sandbox native apps as well.
You make a good point - the sandbox of the browser is a genuine improvement. It's crazy to think that on some desktop OS's if you download and run a weather app, it probably has access to all the files and peripherals you do (camera, microphone, etc...). Apple is doing good work on this front with macOS as are Linux devs with Flatpak. Mobile operating systems do a good job of isolating apps too.
I just want to express some appreciation for your very reasonable reply. Most of the time, "native app" versus "web app" seems to be one of the perennial arguments; it's refreshing to see someone give serious consideration to their position on that point.
Little ironic. For me, Safari on macOS has the best PWA experience.
It gets small things right, like:
- Links open in the default browser
- Smarter about when to open new windows vs overtaking current window
- New windows have access to the same cookies
Those last two were big things when I was using Proton apps as PWAs. For example, I would go to the Proton Docs PWA and it would launch a new Proton Docs window with cookies for the document.
It's a very different experience on iOS. Apple very intentionally made installing PWAs ("Add to Home Screen") horrible UX and locked some features behind it (Push API). You are almost forced into publishing on the App Store if you need push notifications for any reason. macOS Safari does not have the same restriction.
A lot of people agree with Apple on this one because most push notifications are spam. I would agree but your installed PWA still needs to request permission to send push notifications to the user, so requiring users to add websites to their home screen is not a permission gate.
Linux has been smashing records on the steam hardware survey for months now. People I knew who refused to touch anything else but windows are now using framework laptops with Mint or Ubuntu. 2026 absolutely has been the year of the Linux desktop.
It does seem that more and more browser features have become stable but that has been sort of drowned out by the AI boom. Even with millions of us monkeys on these keyboards, (now monkey simulators?), I still think there are even more discoveries to be found in web dev. You can get so much functionality with even the most basic hardware.
WebGPU sucks compared to the desktop APIs. JavaScript and wasm suck compared to native code. Not being able to have threads for loading things like assets in the background sucks.
Yeah there's a ton of llm slop web games out there but anything serious is going to be a desktop application
You can send handles to workers that can do threaded background loading, I believe.
It's sad we got such intensification of react as a jQuery++, such massive focus on munging html. But we really have made few gains building actual full stack front end architectures, about understanding deeply how to get work off the main thread, how to run js well. And there so much platform there we could be using!
Hurts a lot that workers have had absolutely pitiful ESM support. Still no import maps, and I'd place very high odds this baked nonsense stays just as shitfest when 2030 rolls around. That massively inhibits doing the right thing, makes it massively shittier to use the platform, alas. But it's doable. Bundle bundle bundle. Blah.
The web is a pile of garbage fronted by horrible software in the form of terrible browsers that is under massive, unceasing attack from AI bots that will render the entirety of it unusable over time.
well you don't really know much about shipping native apps then do you?
getting them approved and updated is fucking hell and a half. these companies owning these platforms are ghoulish monsters doing everything they can to make the process shit. and it's gotten vastly worse.
want to give away open source? too bad, pay apple. too bad, pay google. if things had gone differently for microsoft, too bad pay microsoft. for a watch, for a tv? pay x, pay y.
> the OpenCode ios app has been ready for weeks but apple hasn't approved it \ even worse they categorized it as an "internal app" so i don't even know how much they're prioritizing ithttps://bsky.app/profile/thdxr.com/post/3mzlbwhubqm2t
one of the top 10 ai apps of all time and they're still getting yanked around, can't get things going.
someone else in my feed had a creative neat tarot card app, with some fun twists. that apple outright said they wouldn't even evaluate, because it was already a served market, tarot cards.
a lot of ya'll weren't around and/or dont remember when you had to pay for Microsoft Visual Studios to develop windows apps. to just develop them! as an adult a couple hundred dollars (1996 dollars) isn't so attrocious, but as a grade schooler, it was an so sad knowing i had no chance to get started making gui apps. now it's developer fees yearly, and app store control, which has gotten more and more annoying to work around, with limits on number of installs for pre-releases, with limits on how long the builds work. native platforms are vicious nasty bad things, owned by massive terrible companies. even KDE spent probably two decades being super on the fence, with Trolltech's weirdly Qt licensing being already on the fence and only a rug-pull away from being a horrible mistake to have built to.
Oh, you want to install an apk you want to try? First enable developer mode, go into settings and click some random thing a bunch of time. Which unlocks an intimidating scary section. Then wait 24 hours. Then you can install an apk. https://www.bgr.com/2303296/how-to-install-apps-android-phon...
Are your users going to do that? I can imagine you or I doing that. But is that what you want to tell your users to go do?
Alternate app stores are coming. But my understanding is they still require the same developer verification. As a developer, it's only $25/life for now to get registered, if you're an individual. And jumping through some legal hoops, which hopefully you have your paperwork setup for. If your an org, the costs may be higher.
There was some hope open source types might set up their own app stores, to help with the sometimes extremely slow or frustrating or limiting Google Play Store reviews. But we just found out it'll be $10,000/year. And no one in the US is going to get access to that. Also, this channel while convenient still assumes your users have to switch to that app store to get your app. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-google-android-reg...
Oh and by the way, you can't sign your apps anymore. You don't actually have control over your apps. Google is replacing apk with App Bundles. In this model, you have to sign your app to upload it, with an upload key you control. But then what actually goes out and gets checked is Google shipping their signature on an App Bundle, with their keys. There's nothing to stop Google from pushing out a release to your app with whatever changes they want. This caused great consternation with VLC for example who was (quite justly) not very happy about this new arrangement. That got resolved, but now Google's the one signing VLC. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/google-play-dumps-ap...https://dev.to/npomepuy/vlc-for-android-updates-on-the-play-...
So yes, it's technically still possible! For users and for devs/corps, for people, there's still technically options for people to install apps. As an individual you and I can manage getting stuff installed! With more and more hoops. With ever more onerous terms.
These systems aren't totally imbalanced right now. Native apps on native platforms have intense access to systems. They don't have the secure sandbox of the web to protect them. It's not reasonable to let users just stumble upon apps and run them, in the way that it's perfectly fine for users to browse the web and run webapps willy nilly. But it's also a war against user freedom, part of a broader War on General Purpose Computing, that has been steadily going one direction (down) for a while now. The number of asterisks will continue to increase, on still allows people to install apps***.
> Native apps on native platforms have intense access to systems. They don't have the secure sandbox of the web to protect them.
So you complain mostly about iOS and Google's Android, and at the same time you say that native apps are not sandboxed? You can't just cherry-pick whatever you want, right? Apps are very much sandboxed on iOS and Android.
The fact is that there are TONS of alternatives. You just focus on the web because you can't be arsed to look at them.
Not happy about iOS, Google Android or Windows? Then how about you look at AOSP-based systems like GrapheneOS? No need to use the Play Store there, AT ALL. How about you distribute your app on open OSes like Linux and *BSD? Even better: you mention open source a lot. Then no need to distribute, just open source your code. If it's interesting enough, someone on the actually open platforms will pick it up.
And instead of teaching developers how they should develop for Google Chrome, try teaching people how they could actually use something that for them will be indistinguishable from Android: like GrapheneOS.
I can't imagine recommending Android or ios to anyone. These systems are prisons, where the biggest sandbox is the one the user is in. Unable to touch or see anything but the most bare surface of their system. Even with a debugger, each app has its own sacred space around it,
> well you don't really know much about shipping native apps then do you?
I don't know about that, but I sure as hell do ship native apps. On Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, Android. I admittedly have never shipped a native app on BSD, but I don't imagine it's very different.
> getting them approved and updated is fucking hell and a half
Oh, so your experience is limited to iOS and the Play Store? Is that it?
> want to give away open source? too bad, pay apple. too bad, pay google
What a weird take. If you want to open source code, you can just put the code on a server and have people download it over your favourite protocol. Typically HTTP works well. On any* server.
> one of the top 10 ai apps of all time and they're still getting yanked around, can't get things going.
Oh yeah, iOS sucks. Welcome to the real world.
> a lot of ya'll weren't around and/or dont remember when you had to pay for Microsoft Visual Studios to develop windows apps
As a high schooler, I was developing for Linux. I admittedly had to pay to receive a CD-ROM with my first Linux distro, and by the minute when connecting to the Internet.
> native platforms are vicious nasty bad things, owned by massive terrible companies.
Right, so your experience is iOS, and Android with the Play Store. And then you assume that you know all platforms and can teach people.
> Qt licensing being already on the fence and only a rug-pull away from being a horrible mistake to have built to.
Sure, maybe. Good thing that in 2026 there are so many open source alternatives to build upon.
The web is controlled by the W3C, a consortium of different stakeholders including Mozilla. It's as close to a public good as we're going to get. I'm disappointed by the self-defeating cynicism in this thread.
The WHATWG is just the standards committee of the W3C. Both include Mozilla, a nonprofit that makes an open-source browser. It is incorrect to suggest that the web is somehow a private business.
I agree that it’s a pile of garbage. Essentially a set of languages and protocols commandeered by corporations for their own benefit and also held back by those same corporations so they have a moat. We’ve gathered around human slop like Javascript and stuck with it “just because”.
I like this statement:
> The web browser is very, very, very powerful software for applications, and the cost of accessing that power is going down seemingly every day.
It's wild how much easier it is to build things that harness web technology these days. I'm building features on top of three.js and offline storage and SSE and WebAudio and WebAssembly multiple times per week these days. I used to tinker with some of those maybe once or twice a year.
I built a voice-command driven kitchen assistant demo with webkit speech to text and WebAudio, and that was 10 years ago!
would be fun to revisit and see what v2 would look like today, I have a feeling I wouldn't be manually recording voice lines this time around ha
https://github.com/pathouse/kitchen_assistant
Why three.js? Your LLM will do fine without it and be able to optimize further for your particular use case without being stopped by three.js architecture that may or may not fit your project.
Ask your LLM, "Can we remove three.js so that we can re-architect the graphics system to be more optimized for our specific use case?" and see what it comes back with.
OK, this comment convinced me to give that a shot.
Here's a thing I made in Three.js this morning - a Nudibranch themed Faberge Egg: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/Hidden-Reef-Egg... (77KB)
I just asked Claude (Opus 5.5 Medium running in regular Claude Chat) to port that to Vanilla JS, in the same thread where it had built it, and got this: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/Hidden-Reef-Egg... (98KB)
They aren't identical - you can see what Claude said about that in the transcript (I don't fully understand why it differed): https://claude.ai/share/e56d163e-2793-4677-aa11-191d5058b414
But yeah, it turns out Claude Opus 5.5 is perfectly capable of 3D modeling in Vanilla JS + WebGL without Three.js.
In eyeballing the code I find the Three.js slightly easier to understand myself, but I rarely look at the code for these 3D projects so that isn't a particularly big deal.
I don't know your prompt but I'd suggest also adding things like "use best GPU practices" and "use techniques AAA games use to achieve the best performance and best visuals", "make it beautiful like a AAA game" etc...
Also, comparing, the three.js version downloaded 395k representing 1.6meg of data. The raw version downloaded 109k representing 200k of data. You listed the three.js version is as smaller but it's not smaller, it had to download three.js
The performance got way better on my machine, 120ms (Vanilla) VS 504ms (Three.js) INP[0].
[0]: https://web.dev/articles/inp
Note that some features have been removed in the vanilla version (eg. glow effect, glass - see transcript posted earlier).
I made an app+DSL for making 3D things with Opus 5 that did a pretty good job without three.js: https://fab.ooer.com/ (setting the depth of field to about 0.3 and then switching Quality to 'traced' looks really nice.)
Three.js egg : 2,61 Mo
Vanilla : 173,4 ko
Vanilla gets way better FPS on my M1.
I had Claude do a raymarched game with rust-gpu (initially Futhark) + webgpu + wasm. It definitely ran terribly, but it was surprisingly good at modeling with SDFs
https://github.com/badly-drawn-wizards/wizard-vibes
That's my experience too, except that I'm not using three.js, just WebGL. At this very moment I'm trying to elicit an in-browser machine-vision app that records go games on a go board if you mount your cellphone on a tripod over the board, with the idea of integrating it with an Emscriptened KataGo to give kibitzers real-time feedback. This would have been insanely ambitious for me three months ago, and now I'm hoping I have it in good enough shape to test at the go club tonight.
Between web 2.0 and now I though the web would be finished. I think i got it wrong and the web is just getting started!
It's wild how much more difficult it is to actually use things that harness web technology these days.
> So take a look at Simon Willison’s new web-based browser 3D game, Battle Drones. He’s hosting it on GitHub. He wrote it himself. He’s not a games builder.
I checked the repo, and it is written by Claude. Does this count as writing it himself?
Crazy nobody else mentioned it. He said in his blog, himself.
Yes? If you give a friend a ride to the airport in your car, did you do the work or the car?
If you paid for an Uber did you do the work or the car?
Travis Kalanick did the work there. When If I get into my buddy's Tesla and the computer drives, I say Elon's driving. In my other friend's car with a Comma AI, I say geohot is driving.
Crazy
For anyone having a hard time following the comments or mentality: Someone explained in a HN comment a few weeks ago in a comment which has helped clarify in my mind: Web (And especially SAAS) developers make up a large portion of HN users. They use and love frontend frameworks, Node, NPM, and using web tech for many tasks, as a first line of tools.
You pretend as if this is a totally alien concept, while you yourself use HN in a browser. Literally everyone uses a browser. The whole point of the post is that you don't have to ask your users to do anything other than click on a URL. It is obnoxious to act like you can't understand this.
More importantly: you don't have to ask your users to hoover up all their data, it is already there in your server!
Not to mention trying to convince them to use the latest version with all the (mis)features it might have: they have no choice!
Why do you think native apps are better? They run directly on your machine without those pesky browser sandboxes, they can grab anything they want!
Because when something is running on my machine i have more control over it and greater ability to inspect what it does. Usually i also put stuff in my machine from reputable sources (e.g. Linux repositories). And for the most part i prefer opensource software that i (or some LLM i point the code at) can check if it does something obviously naughty.
Yes, web apps are fine if i don't trust the source much. As an example i use the web-based version of Discord in a Firefox tab instead of the native version.
Would you rather use Reddit in a browser or the Reddit app?
Reddit from 2009, with an open API
That's not one of the available choices - it's 2026. Now pick.
Excuse me? Bossy much?
FWiW I've made my choice, I stopped using Reddit on a regular basis more than a decade ago, and used old.reddit for occasional reference and link following until recently (the account/password login requirement) since which I've not been back.
> Because when something is running on my machine i have more control over it and greater ability to inspect what it does.
You live a different universe from me, one where native apps let you run userscripts or press inspect element, and web apps don't.
Great as a developer, hideous as an user. I want to click i want to feel happy, thats the amount of work i do as a user
> Because when something is running on my machine i have more control over it and greater ability to inspect what it does.
This is not true at all, why do you think this is the case? Can you read binaries?
Actually it is very true. And as i wrote in the rest of the comment after the part you quoted, i a) generally install stuff from reputable sources and b) use opensource software.
There are some people who exclusively (or mostly) use open source software. There are practical and philosophical reasons; I am not sure if the parent poster is one, but it is likely from context.
> This is not true at all, why do you think this is the case? Can you read binaries?
What the hell are you talking about? Do you pretend things like wireshark, debuggers, disassemblers etc. do not exist?
And with a native app you don't have to ask your users to do anything than double click the App (or tap the icon).
You mean "go to the installation page and choose the correct OS/version, download and install". Compare that to "Click here: https://tinylittleoffice.com/"
The computer already comes with an office suite installed in most cases. And I hope you don't suggest that tiny little office compares, even though it's very neat.
And the place you get your app from usually automatically knows which OS you are on.
And also most web apps of any sophistication demand that you register an account to use them, click the verify email link etc
The post is not about office suites, it is about web apps in general. They are objectively easier for a user to access.
They are not, because you usually have to register, click verification link etc. Installing a native app can often be two clicks.
Not to mention that a native app can work offline.
You were the one to bring up office suites.
The developer tooling for the web, all the way down to ECMAScript is awful, but the web platform is powerful. Using node, npm, etc. for anything not targeting the web is an anti-pattern unless your team only understands that tooling.
And on top, most of them know nothing of programming outside their technical domain and could not possible imagine that development can be built on sane and stable foundations.
Me being downvoted without any counter claim only strengthens my observation.
The web is just a better frontend/GUI platform.
"better" is relative.
Web is very ubiquitors. Works on desktop, works on phone, works on raspberry pi, works via cli, agent can browse it, human can browse it.
All you need is a url. You can pass via word of mouth.
The problem with web, is it got complex and jammed. So native apps still have an edge in performance and what they can access in platform.
Google and Apple make billions from their app store fees. So they're not too interested in web apps being as powerful and efficient as native apps.
The web is phenomenal though.
You are just being downvoted, but people like you deserve more severe punishments for the state of tech AD 2026.
It is, and I'll tell you my anecdote...
I am developing a game and right now got iOS, macOS, Android, web responsive, Rust for Linux and Rust for Windows versions ready. Six different source folders for the same game. It is exhausting even with the help of modern tools
If we could use just one tech stack providing native parity without drawbacks for all of them that would be the final achievement in software development, but I still think we are decades away from that
I am afraid with LLMs as good as they are, there is no more incentive to build a high fidelity cross platform. Cross platforms are very hard to pull off with high fidelity, and is going to be a moving target. With LLMs, we can have something similar with even less coding.
I know it tends to be an unpopular opinion, but to me the Web is too much, really.
Many people (me included) like to complain about how systemd is trying to overtake everything, but browsers are a lot worse than that. Even if I can realistically choose my OS today, I have to run most apps in a browser. And the browser landscape is not that nice in terms of freedom: Google controls it through Chromium, Apple manages to force their users to use Webkit, and Firefox... is marginal.
More than that: I can realistically assemble my own OS, that is actually feasible. The one tricky component that I will need to integrate, though, is the browser. And the browser landscape, again, is totally controlled by BigTech.
Pushing for webapps is pushing to lock us into Chromium, controlled by Google. I don't see what's great in shipping a copy of Chromium embedded in a webapp and calling that a "desktop app".
I want control and diversity. The Web is far from there, and for some reason people love that.
And there can only be very few browsers because of all the features they have to bit-perfectly support. Even Microsoft gave up and ceded their power to Google - Windows comes with repackaged Chrome.
Back when a web browser meant parsing tags and deciding where to place floating images, you could reasonably write your own. Now there's just too much of it. Even without JavaScript.
That was pre AI. Nowadays lots of browsers popping up with AI guidance like Ladybird and Blitz, both of which have experienced developers leading them rather than AI slop.
Both of which have experienced developers leading in slopping them.
AI is not automatically slop, much as you'd like to believe so. And humans have been writing slop for way longer.
It is, and what humans were doing is irrelevant. The goal is to improve state of affairs, not to increase slopification rate.
Ladybird is another web browser in the works that is a completely separate engine from chromium and webkit.
https://ladybird.org/
Native apps have their place, but the average everyday user is becoming more and more hostile to the idea of installing an application and just using their existing web browser to accomplish the same task. I know I would rather use my limited SSD space for photos, games, and movies, than 100 different apps. Also supporting hundreds of different pieces of hardware isn't economical for most projects. The web solves both problems in that it gets your app into the hands of users immediately and you can delegate the responsibility of supporting various hardware to the browser vendors.
Google also doesn't own the web contrary to popular belief (Even if they have an outsized amount of influence). The web is an open standard, anyone could hack together their own browser if they wanted to with enough time and effort. That amount prior to the AI era was so large, only a shop like Google, Firefox, or Apple could put in the time and effort required to make one, and the amount of time of effort that requires is falling significantly day-by-day due to LLM generated code.
> than 100 different apps
Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser? The web is nice for loading websites, obviously you shouldn't have to install one app per website. But anything more complex than a website should be a program you install.
> hostile to the idea of installing an application
When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use". If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
> isn't economical
Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
> Google also doesn't own the web contrary to popular belief (Even if they have an outsized amount of influence).
Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
> When you load a webapp, you download and run it. It's actually pretty similar to "installing and deleting right after use".
The big distinction is security policy. There is a tremendous amount of things you can do in the browser that you cannot do on the desktop if you do not own the computer.
That is an interesting point, but I think that moving everything to the browser is a workaround, rather than the elegant solution.
When you do not own the computer, I assume you are prevented from doing some stuff for security reasons. The problem being that you could easily break your computer, and your company does not trust you not to do it. But I would argue it's a security model issue on the OS.
Typically, it is not an issue on mobile OSes, because apps are sandboxed by default. And users generally have fewer issues installing mobile apps than installing desktop software, it seems?
There's also that the fact that computing historically have two models as far as managements goes: a) The mainframe model where users have reduced right and there's a set of administrators that are responsible for choosing programs and configuring them b) and the microprocessor model where it's a tool owned by the user and programs acting on the behalf of the users.
The main issue comes from the mixing of those two models where users own a computer, but vendors keep thinking of them as clients for their services. No longer content to use the network as the boundary, they also want a boundary inside the computer. Discord is not that fundamentally different from IRC, and people usually had no reason to sandbox their IRC clients, but you always have to worry about Discord doing some nefarious updates or abusing its role.
Ironically, though, when people are doing everything in the browser, being unable to do things on the desktop isn't much of a security benefit. In theory, restrictions on cross-domain data sharing are supposed to make things better. But we still see plenty of browser vulnerabilities, XSS hacks, and various sorts of trickery that allow people to exploit web apps in their own way. Moreover, a sizable part of the security is illusory anyway, because the web apps themselves are trying to spy on you in a multitude of ways.
> Do you actually use 100 different apps in the browser?
Yes. My tab count regularly exceeds 100.
> If I look at mobile phones, people most definitely install apps they care about. Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
You're confusing volume of applications with time spent on applications. These users have 2-3 tasks they're willing to download and install an app for, but chances are you will never develop an app billions of users will have open for most of the day, and most users don't want to download an app to do things outside of Instagram, TikTok etc.
> Oh yeah, I agree that the cheap option is to have a webapp. Usually it's not even done well: I often have to run Chrome because the cheap webapp doesn't work on Firefox. Next step to get cheaper: vibe-coded webapps. We're getting there, but it does not make it desirable!
Invisible hand of the free market tends to take care of that. And I say that as someone who leans liberal progressive when it comes to economic policies. I doubt the 1.0 versions of many "hand-crafted" apps would hold up to today's standards either.
I really don't understand how some people think it's possible to craft a "perfect" version 1.0 of anything and then release it out into the wild with 0 problems. This was an issue BEFORE vibe coding. Does anyone here remember the first release of Cyberpunk 2077? Software doesn't magically improve by itself, it has to run into real world friction and feedback from users to get anywhere. Even if that feedback is just "this app is vibe-coded slop".
> Are you really trying to say that "the web" is not "the property" of Google? I mean, I agree, but... do you actually believe that this is what I meant?
Yes. "Chaos is a ladder". Instead of bemoaning the state of the internet, it's more productive to find opportunities in the current chaos.
> Yes. My tab count regularly exceeds 100.
What do you call a webapp? To me, Gmail is a webapp. Google Docs is a webapp. A video game running in the browser is a webapp. Outlook running in the browser is a webapp. Google Meet is a webapp.
HN is NOT a webapp. Google Search is NOT a webapp. A blog is NOT a webapp. Those are "websites" (again, my wording for clarity).
My stance is that the web is great for websites, not for webapps. Apps should run on the OS, not in the browser.
> most users don't want to download an app to do things outside of Instagram, TikTok etc.
But again, what do they do outside of Instagram, TikTok, etc? Almost nothing, right? And most of that nothing is probably done on websites, not webapps.
Sure, they don't want to install an app to order something on Temu/Zalando. But those should be websites anyway.
> Invisible hand of the free market tends to take care of that.
Invisible hand doesn't work in a market ruled by quasi monopolies.
> I really don't understand how some people think it's possible to craft a "perfect" version 1.0 of anything and then release it out into the wild with 0 problems.
In good approximation, nobody thinks that. That's why you can update software. Which is done in webapps in a way, though brute-force style: instead of updating the webapp when it changes, you re-download it every time.
> Instead of bemoaning the state of the internet, it's more productive to find opportunities in the current chaos.
My point is: "don't write webapps, write native apps". There are plenty of opportunities there.
> Nobody would use whatsapp from the browser on their phone, or Instagram, or TikTok, would they?
I would if those apps didn't intentionally make the web version worse than the app. There was a small amount of time where TikTok was under scrutiny from the US government and not available for download. Somehow, during that time the website worked just fine, but once the deals were signed and the app was available for download again, somehow the app became too complex to work on the web. Funny how that works.
to be clear to everyone running into this: we've had libertarian software politics like this for decades. "i don't want any software i cant drown in my bathtub and then also make myself again, preferrably still in my bathtub". or something like that.
i find it ridiculously uncompelling. it's always felt not like a well formed grounded way to be. it's amazing that we have really good capable platforms that can help us. especially when there are multi-polar orgs like w3c and what and lately wicg that serve as stewarts, that watch over these platforms. when there are often ietf tie ins. when there are projects like interop that help move the platform forward across browsers, agree on the baseline.
what's so viciously deeply libertarian coded to me about this assessment is it's me me me me me. what can i do? what can i make? what software can i build? with some notes of fear to tell you google is bad. beware google. i realize the anti-google sentiment is super strong in the world, but after being around the web for decades i can hardly say what thanks and joy and celebration i have to google for building the ultimate existential hedge against everyone else: a free platform for the free world that runs free on endless devices, that is the only free platform the world has ever seen with any success. that has gotten vastly better.
i think at this point and for half a decade plus on HN the "I know it tends to be an unpopular opinion" is thanks for the web and google. i think i'm in the minority for my thanks. i think the outrage and dismisal and scare words is by far the most popular stance.
but what's on the other hand? native apps, on native platforms? those things that run on 20% of computers, that you have to be a licensed paid up authorized developer to ship to, that have very long queues for submitting your app to to maybe some day have it approved perhaps?
the libertarian view is what you can do. yeah, the super small, the do it yourself. it's a fantasy.
the mature societal view is what we can do. it's having this permissionless platform that anyone can build software for. it's having Project Fugu trying to make that platform competitive, good, capable: giving hte native platform a constant run for the money. so that we all can benefit. so that any dev can make an app. it's "extensible web manifesto", where the web doesn't bake in particular flavors of software development, so we can choose jquery or backbone or react or vue or solid or svelte or lit, so society can iterate and keep refining and re-deciding what surface they want to program to, what models fit them, what they want to program against: you don't see that with native platforms! you get what they are and that's mostly that!
you get such a wide ranging low level platform, such freedom to use it as you please on the web. but much much much more, everyone else can enjoy it too. it's a civilized platform, the only civilized one where we have control, where we the world has say. if you don't like the native platforms, well, you can remake something else, but it'll be you and your couple friends perhaps amid the 7b people who are still using either the web or what big companies gave them.
the libertarian sees what they can do. but i'm really interested in what we can do. and there's nothing like the web for this. as developers, as users, as users in-between user-scripting or writing extensions: for everyone, as the article says:
> and the cost of accessing that power is going down seemingly every day.
That's... uh... extremely biased and quite limited? Respectfully, it sounds like you haven't been around the internet for so long ("half a decade" sounds like you're pretty young :-) ).
First, Google did not give us the web. Google gave us a good search engine, then Gmail, then worked very hard towards becoming the quasi-monopoly it is by killing the competition in a way or another. There are countless examples of monopolistic behaviours by Google in... a lot more than half a decade.
Second, I get that you are into web, and hence you can mention "jquery or backbone or react or vue or solid or svelte or lit", but you should really look into what exists outside of the web. There are tons of ways (and even languages!) to write desktop apps or mobile apps!
> where the web doesn't bake in particular flavors of software development
On the web, you do what the browser allows you to do. Just like on an OS. Turns out that there are many more OSes than browsers, many of which are not maintained by BigTech.
You think the web doesn't bake in particular flavours of software development? How do you do multithreading? How do you open a port and receive network packets? In order to run code in a language other than Javascript, you had to wait years for WebAssembly to become usable, and even then, it's not like it was life-changing: you may be able to compile python to WebAssembly and run it in a browser, but... really?
> native apps, on native platforms? those things that run on 20% of computers, that you have to be a licensed paid up authorized developer to ship to, that have very long queues for submitting your app to to maybe some day have it approved perhaps?
Have you ever written a native app? Like, a program that runs on Windows, or Linux, or macOS, or BSD, or Android? Sure, iOS is annoying as hell, but you have mainstream choice* apart from it. What's my alternative to Chrome? A rebranded Chromium? Or maybe Firefox, but still I need to run Chrome once in a while because your great web perfection routinely fails to run on Firefox.
Really, go have a look at what's out there! If you are grateful for Google in 2026, it suggests that there is actually a lot for you to discover. That's exciting!
> Respectfully, it sounds like you haven't been around the internet for so long
Incorrecet
> How do you do multithreading?
Webworkers. Before that, sometimes iframes.
> How do you open a port and receive network packets?
Webrtc, hopefully https://wicg.github.io/local-peer-to-peer/
> In order to run code in a language other than Javascript, you had to wait years for WebAssembly to become usable,
GWT, CoffeeScript, examples go on and on and on. You did have to wait years for wasm. But also, it's fine and in some ways far far better that there are de facti languages for the web, and that's been a huge part of why it's so uniquely rfc8890 compliant, in ways that no mere platform has ever been.
There's more out there alright, but it's still this libertarian what can I do. It's the developer centric view. None of these other platforms improve what can we do. None of them have the ambition to be available on tens of billions of devices. None of them are connected by default, networked, in anywhere near the way the web is. None of them have multi-polar governance & cooperation.
I'm very glad there's other things happening. But also their ambition has been very low. The web remains ridiculously different than every other way to run processes, while everything else (except Erlang/beam) clusters very very tightly around writing single processes that need libraries to build up to http or websocket or grpc or quic. There's been a tragic failure to think anywhere near as big as the web, to develop models where something declarative like the page leads the charge, grounds the programming model in something material, constructible, clear.
Google as far I'm concerned did make the web, added heat and pressure to keep going, to not stop here, to make it fast, gave us examples of use like (via acquisition I believe) Google Maps, and Gmail. We would still have had a web, but the parallel reality if they hadn't been finding browsers, spec writers, dev tools: it's a ghastly impoverished sad world, one where native apps actually look like a good choice for the world.
Man, if anyone would ask me about what false consciousness is, I will send them this comment.
Web-tech is basically user-interface tech. Its super-power is that you can commit your GUI to be on the web, while the servers can be implemented with anything. The web-gui must have the most users world-wide, largely because all you need to install isss a wweb-browser and you get access to unlimited applications.
Any application can have a web-GUI, so why not have it, and they do, because that allows more people to use the app, with the standard conventions. Once you learn the basic functionalities of the browser (like back-button etc.) you can benefit from that knowledge with any app.
This starts to look like the good old OSI-model thinking. GUI is one layer, and like other layers it can be standardised.
I run roughly six applications regularly:
- One browser window (with tabs)
- One terminal window (with tabs)
- Signal (not a web app, for good reason, though frankly I'd be thrilled if it lived in a browser tab anyway as an app being served to localhost)
- The occasional PDF viewer for PDFs I'm working on (anything loaded from the web gets viewed in the in-browser PDF viewer, but when I'm creating presentations or papers or similar, I have a terminal and a PDF viewer both half-maximized)
- Video player for local videos (mpv)
- Music player for local music (quodlibet)
cmus in a terminal <3
We're rebuilding Google Maps on the Web, and the Web only with https://cartes.app.
The main problem we're struggling with is mobile OSes' will to hide the possibility of installing Web app on our devices, and deactiving things like the vibration API. Not the Web itself.
WEb-tech is basically user-interface tech. Its super-power is that you can commit your GUI to be on the web, while the servers can be implemented with anything. The web-gui must have the most users world-wide, largely because all you need to install isss a wweb-browser and you get access to unlimited applications.
Any application can have a web-GUI, so why not have it, and they do, because that allows more people to use the app, with the standard conventions. Once you learn the basic functionalities of the browser (like back-button etc.) you can benefit from that knowledge with any app.
> the multiplayer-over-audio thing is a first for an RTS as far as I can tell
Because it's fun, but that's all it is. I had a class at university decades ago where the goal was to transmit data between two computers over audio (and the sound was unpleasant). It's not a novel idea, it's just not something that should be done other than for learning or fun.
In fact it was the first way most people accessed the internet back when it was new to the public!
FWIW with WebXR it's not "just" 2D or 3D with WebGL, no it is immersive content (i.e VR or AR) on ALL platforms, including the very latest Steam Frame.
25 years ago well over 95% of users would have been on windows, and there is no chance in hell you'll ever convince me that modern web development is as easy as Visual Basic was for whipping up UIs back in the day.
That AI is making it easier is happenstance, it makes generating UIs in anything easier.
Visual Basic had a massive advantage in that the window would always be the same size, or at least the same aspect ratio.
You just placed controls at absolute coordinates and they worked. When you ran the program it always looked exactly the same as in the editor. Later Windowses could scale it up by a constant factor for high-DPI displays.
In hindsight it's an excellent use of the KISS principle. We didn't need layout managers. Yes the window couldn't be maximised, but so be it, this was fine for many windows. If you did want that then you had to recalculate the widget positions yourself.
Exemplary of this style, I think, is the Windows 95-98 display settings window. The one every kid discovered because it was quickly accessible by right clicking the desktop and selecting "properties".
Ah, the heady days when we had exactly 3 screen resolutions.
With a powerful GPU, resolution isn't as important as aspect ratio.
Yesish… VB is easier for spinning up an interface but it also offers less creative flexibility than the current web platform.
The other side of that coin is training. You can train people on VB in far less time. Most people writing JavaScript for a living have absolutely no idea what they are doing. Most of these people are completely reliable on React to put text on screen and then other languages at absolutely every opportunity. While there is amazing stuff coming out of a select few start ups and many open source projects, those people are not the typical corporate software developer.
I think a large part of the "creative flexibility" of the web platform is a bug, not a feature. It makes it fun for web designers, but a pain for users. I would much rather not have to navigate the various design choices of each separate web app, and instead use consistent systemwide UI elements whose appearance is decided by me via system settings.
The web, circa 1998 is more than enough.
Most of the problems we have with online security, privacy, tracking, etc., are the result of the rapid, irresponsible and sometimes infantile expansion of capabilities of the simple web browser.
Canvas? Resolutions? Sound drivers? web-usb ?!
We’re giving up something very valuable when we “improve” html or “enhance” the browser.
> The web, circa 1998 is more than enough.
I think I might want to move that forward a tiny bit...to maybe 2000 ~ 2005; but no further...but i get your point, and you're NOT wrong!
> Most of the problems we have with online security, privacy, tracking, etc., are the result of the rapid, irresponsible and sometimes infantile expansion of capabilities of the simple web browser.
While I am so impressed by some functions that modern web browsers can do, and how creative some people can get...I'm with you!
> Canvas? Resolutions? Sound drivers? web-usb ?!
Like 20% of the cool - and i'll add advanced - functions that modern browsers can achieve is really impressive! But, i think they *should* only be used for like 20% (or the minority) use cases...Whereas the rest of 80% functionality should be as basic as hell! A browser started as a document viewer, and we've strayed soooo far from that! And worse, since everybody wants to put apps into the browser, now browsers have to become the "operating system" for everything. If things ran smooth and simple, and every web page was not full of 500MB worth of crap, then maybe a browser as an operating system for most functions might be ok...but, nope. That's not the reality we live in. People keep jamming in all sorts of functions into the browser - because they can - so, things will continue to deteriorate. We can fight to backtrack this reality, or create an alternative (perhaps retro sort of) reality - e.g. Gemini capsules, neuvo BBS, etc., or we can opt out and go offline as much as possible. Lately, I've been dabbling tons more in the latter 2, and I feel much happier.
But unlike the year of the Linux desktop (any year now!), the promise of the Web as the app platform of the future seems to recede ever further into the distance.
The web is the app platform of today. Many, many things that would have been local applications are now web apps. Document editing, email, chat, collaboration...
I’m hoping that great AI means we get back to native apps and leave the web house of cards behind.
How will AI make the Apple app store approve your app? That's the bottleneck with Apple, not the development.
Fuck no. Native apps are _invariably_ worse than well-designed webapps: no tabs, no bookmarks, no copy/paste, deep links are usually broken, no ability to open multiple apps side-by-side.
I don't think I know even a single exception outside the hardware-heavy games or AR/VR.
Unpopular opinion: extensive use of tabs and bookmarks is an antipattern.
I've seen some bone-headed opinions on HN before but this may take the cake...
> no tabs
Brother what are you even talking about? Tabbed applications predate the WWW.
> no bookmarks
Bookmarks are not a part of web apps, they're part of your browser (Which get this: Is a native app!)
> no copy/paste
Again, what are you smoking? Try this if you're on Windows: Open the Start Menu, then type notepad. See that menu bar up at the top? Click where it says Edit. What do you think the copy and paste options there do?
> deep links are usually broken
Okay, I'll grant you this one, deep links generally aren't a thing on native apps. But a native app is a thing that runs locally on your computer. What the hell would you be linking to?
> no ability to open multiple apps side-by-side
Not only can you open apps side-by-side, you can actually open them on top of each other.
Just because you don't know how to use your computer doesn't mean this functionality doesn't exist.
> Brother what are you even talking about? Tabbed applications predate the WWW.
And most native apps don't have them, especially on mobile.
> Bookmarks are not a part of web apps, they're part of your browser (Which get this: Is a native app!)
And? Which native apps have bookmarks?
Perhaps Apple Maps? Nope. Photos? Nope.
> Again, what are you smoking? Try this if you're on Windows: Open the Start Menu, then type notepad. See that menu bar up at the top? Click where it says Edit. What do you think the copy and paste options there do?
Open the Notepad and copy the text from the menu bar.
> Not only can you open apps side-by-side, you can actually open them on top of each other.
Not with mobile apps. And not with apps like Music.
> Just because you don't know how to use your computer doesn't mean this functionality doesn't exist.
It's funny to hear stupid takes and then ask these stupid takers to show the examples on their phones. Go on, open your phone and try to view the mail in multiple tabs.
Trivial in browser.
I'm hoping that more native apps get rewritten as web apps so they can stay in a browser sandbox where they belong. "Fortunately", we'll probably both get all the slop we "want".
Yeah I find it interesting that HN's love of performance seems to overpower their love of security. Especially since nearly everyone here has better hardware than average people.
I do not enjoy running random strangers' Rust on my machine unless it's sitting in a VM and probably also a container, at which point the performance benefit is gone anyways.
I recently moved all of the desktop apps I reasonably could to browser tabs and have been quite happy with it.
Oh and don't forget how easily you can modify the source. With a simple user script or extension I can modify your website to behave exactly how I want it to without recompiling.
It's largely because when Electron first came out the browser app platform (the API availability, performance, etc) was still quite thin and Electron was quite slow. HN just got stuck in this echo that web browsers are very inefficient and have no benefits while native apps are so much better. Java had the same echo for a long time on nerd forums because the JVM was a lot slower than native compiled apps for the first few years of its development.
In practice since then, browser-based apps ended up eating a lot of the demand for native apps and the web browser as a platform ended up displacing a lot of native apps, but the echo has stayed around here with little grounding. As such the distribution, security, and performance posture for browser and mobile apps has become a lot better while native app toolkits have lagged behind.
There's certainly a possibility that agentic development will make native development "cheap" again and encourage a lot more of it. But the web platform's security posture is much more well fleshed out at this point so I'm not sure.
Electron also papered over the problem that browsers weren't evergreen, so if you ran in the user's browser, you might not have support for current web APIs you want to depend on.
Most browsers are evergreen and updated frequently now, to the point that that no longer seems like an issue.
> Yeah I find it interesting that HN's love of performance seems to overpower their love of security
I don't think we should necessarily want to live in a world where the browser is the only way to achieve sandboxing. The various flavours of chroot jails are gradually gaining traction to sandbox native apps as well.
Google Chrome allows web apps full access to your USB devices if they can trick you into accepting a permission prompt.
You make a good point - the sandbox of the browser is a genuine improvement. It's crazy to think that on some desktop OS's if you download and run a weather app, it probably has access to all the files and peripherals you do (camera, microphone, etc...). Apple is doing good work on this front with macOS as are Linux devs with Flatpak. Mobile operating systems do a good job of isolating apps too.
Windows though... seems to be stuck in the 90's.
I just want to express some appreciation for your very reasonable reply. Most of the time, "native app" versus "web app" seems to be one of the perennial arguments; it's refreshing to see someone give serious consideration to their position on that point.
I read that on Apple if you download and install a weather app, every week it'll ask you if you're sure you want that app to know your location.
There's no happy middle ground. You'll always have to be careful what you install.
There's players like apple making PWAs not have all the features they should, though
Little ironic. For me, Safari on macOS has the best PWA experience.
It gets small things right, like:
- Links open in the default browser
- Smarter about when to open new windows vs overtaking current window
- New windows have access to the same cookies
Those last two were big things when I was using Proton apps as PWAs. For example, I would go to the Proton Docs PWA and it would launch a new Proton Docs window with cookies for the document.
It's a very different experience on iOS. Apple very intentionally made installing PWAs ("Add to Home Screen") horrible UX and locked some features behind it (Push API). You are almost forced into publishing on the App Store if you need push notifications for any reason. macOS Safari does not have the same restriction.
A lot of people agree with Apple on this one because most push notifications are spam. I would agree but your installed PWA still needs to request permission to send push notifications to the user, so requiring users to add websites to their home screen is not a permission gate.
Why does apple hide so many things behind share? Absolutely terrible UX
Which is much to all of our detriment. Web apps can't hold a candle to native apps in the quality of the user experience they provide.
Preferences differ; I will take a web app every time, for a whole variety of reasons.
Linux has been smashing records on the steam hardware survey for months now. People I knew who refused to touch anything else but windows are now using framework laptops with Mint or Ubuntu. 2026 absolutely has been the year of the Linux desktop.
It does seem that more and more browser features have become stable but that has been sort of drowned out by the AI boom. Even with millions of us monkeys on these keyboards, (now monkey simulators?), I still think there are even more discoveries to be found in web dev. You can get so much functionality with even the most basic hardware.
Okay, but how is the title not “Web is All You Need”.
Crazy to say when desktop apps and TUIs are becoming more useful than ever. No the web is not enough, even for something as simple as version control.
We're probably further away now from "web is enough" than we were 5 years ago.
What if I told you not everyone is a developer?
And your point being?
The web and people developing for it still have a long way to go before it's enough for me.
Also if you read the article, the topic is discussed entirely within the context of software development and distribution.
> for software people, being perpetually devalued is pretty novel
Hadn't really realized this is happening. Is it? Actually my experience right now is the exact opposite.
> Hadn't really realized this is happening. Is it?
Several rounds of layoffs in BigTech recently - for example, Microsoft is currently giving "Voluntary Exit Offers" to 60,000+ folks.
That and a general air that management is starting to think that LLMs can do the jobs of expensive engineers...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50398631
WebGPU sucks compared to the desktop APIs. JavaScript and wasm suck compared to native code. Not being able to have threads for loading things like assets in the background sucks.
Yeah there's a ton of llm slop web games out there but anything serious is going to be a desktop application
Literally every app I use professionally is a web app, except the terminal emulator.
The only personal app I use that is native is a game.
So my experience is that web is serious and native is frivolous.
> So my experience is that web is serious and native is frivolous.
Yeah. I'd really love the reverse to be true, but basically everything in my workflow is either a webapp or an electron shell.
You can send handles to workers that can do threaded background loading, I believe.
It's sad we got such intensification of react as a jQuery++, such massive focus on munging html. But we really have made few gains building actual full stack front end architectures, about understanding deeply how to get work off the main thread, how to run js well. And there so much platform there we could be using!
Hurts a lot that workers have had absolutely pitiful ESM support. Still no import maps, and I'd place very high odds this baked nonsense stays just as shitfest when 2030 rolls around. That massively inhibits doing the right thing, makes it massively shittier to use the platform, alas. But it's doable. Bundle bundle bundle. Blah.
The web is a pile of garbage fronted by horrible software in the form of terrible browsers that is under massive, unceasing attack from AI bots that will render the entirety of it unusable over time.
It will be shutoff. And i wont miss it.
What will you use instead?
PC software, embedded firmware, drivers, websites, etc. Right tool for the right job.
Native apps!
If Big Platform lets you.
Not sure what you mean.
well you don't really know much about shipping native apps then do you?
getting them approved and updated is fucking hell and a half. these companies owning these platforms are ghoulish monsters doing everything they can to make the process shit. and it's gotten vastly worse.
want to give away open source? too bad, pay apple. too bad, pay google. if things had gone differently for microsoft, too bad pay microsoft. for a watch, for a tv? pay x, pay y.
> the OpenCode ios app has been ready for weeks but apple hasn't approved it \ even worse they categorized it as an "internal app" so i don't even know how much they're prioritizing it https://bsky.app/profile/thdxr.com/post/3mzlbwhubqm2t
one of the top 10 ai apps of all time and they're still getting yanked around, can't get things going.
someone else in my feed had a creative neat tarot card app, with some fun twists. that apple outright said they wouldn't even evaluate, because it was already a served market, tarot cards.
a lot of ya'll weren't around and/or dont remember when you had to pay for Microsoft Visual Studios to develop windows apps. to just develop them! as an adult a couple hundred dollars (1996 dollars) isn't so attrocious, but as a grade schooler, it was an so sad knowing i had no chance to get started making gui apps. now it's developer fees yearly, and app store control, which has gotten more and more annoying to work around, with limits on number of installs for pre-releases, with limits on how long the builds work. native platforms are vicious nasty bad things, owned by massive terrible companies. even KDE spent probably two decades being super on the fence, with Trolltech's weirdly Qt licensing being already on the fence and only a rug-pull away from being a horrible mistake to have built to.
Android still allows people to install apps. So does Windows. iOS is the only major platform that doesn't.
Oh, you want to install an apk you want to try? First enable developer mode, go into settings and click some random thing a bunch of time. Which unlocks an intimidating scary section. Then wait 24 hours. Then you can install an apk. https://www.bgr.com/2303296/how-to-install-apps-android-phon...
Are your users going to do that? I can imagine you or I doing that. But is that what you want to tell your users to go do?
Alternate app stores are coming. But my understanding is they still require the same developer verification. As a developer, it's only $25/life for now to get registered, if you're an individual. And jumping through some legal hoops, which hopefully you have your paperwork setup for. If your an org, the costs may be higher.
There was some hope open source types might set up their own app stores, to help with the sometimes extremely slow or frustrating or limiting Google Play Store reviews. But we just found out it'll be $10,000/year. And no one in the US is going to get access to that. Also, this channel while convenient still assumes your users have to switch to that app store to get your app. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-google-android-reg...
Oh and by the way, you can't sign your apps anymore. You don't actually have control over your apps. Google is replacing apk with App Bundles. In this model, you have to sign your app to upload it, with an upload key you control. But then what actually goes out and gets checked is Google shipping their signature on an App Bundle, with their keys. There's nothing to stop Google from pushing out a release to your app with whatever changes they want. This caused great consternation with VLC for example who was (quite justly) not very happy about this new arrangement. That got resolved, but now Google's the one signing VLC. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/07/google-play-dumps-ap... https://dev.to/npomepuy/vlc-for-android-updates-on-the-play-...
So yes, it's technically still possible! For users and for devs/corps, for people, there's still technically options for people to install apps. As an individual you and I can manage getting stuff installed! With more and more hoops. With ever more onerous terms.
On Windows, Windows Baseline Security Mode got introduced this year, which also is ratcheting up demands, demanding signing systems for apps on Windows. https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2026/02/09/stren...
These systems aren't totally imbalanced right now. Native apps on native platforms have intense access to systems. They don't have the secure sandbox of the web to protect them. It's not reasonable to let users just stumble upon apps and run them, in the way that it's perfectly fine for users to browse the web and run webapps willy nilly. But it's also a war against user freedom, part of a broader War on General Purpose Computing, that has been steadily going one direction (down) for a while now. The number of asterisks will continue to increase, on still allows people to install apps***.
> Native apps on native platforms have intense access to systems. They don't have the secure sandbox of the web to protect them.
So you complain mostly about iOS and Google's Android, and at the same time you say that native apps are not sandboxed? You can't just cherry-pick whatever you want, right? Apps are very much sandboxed on iOS and Android.
The fact is that there are TONS of alternatives. You just focus on the web because you can't be arsed to look at them.
Not happy about iOS, Google Android or Windows? Then how about you look at AOSP-based systems like GrapheneOS? No need to use the Play Store there, AT ALL. How about you distribute your app on open OSes like Linux and *BSD? Even better: you mention open source a lot. Then no need to distribute, just open source your code. If it's interesting enough, someone on the actually open platforms will pick it up.
And instead of teaching developers how they should develop for Google Chrome, try teaching people how they could actually use something that for them will be indistinguishable from Android: like GrapheneOS.
I can't imagine recommending Android or ios to anyone. These systems are prisons, where the biggest sandbox is the one the user is in. Unable to touch or see anything but the most bare surface of their system. Even with a debugger, each app has its own sacred space around it,
> well you don't really know much about shipping native apps then do you?
I don't know about that, but I sure as hell do ship native apps. On Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, Android. I admittedly have never shipped a native app on BSD, but I don't imagine it's very different.
> getting them approved and updated is fucking hell and a half
Oh, so your experience is limited to iOS and the Play Store? Is that it?
> want to give away open source? too bad, pay apple. too bad, pay google
What a weird take. If you want to open source code, you can just put the code on a server and have people download it over your favourite protocol. Typically HTTP works well. On any* server.
> one of the top 10 ai apps of all time and they're still getting yanked around, can't get things going.
Oh yeah, iOS sucks. Welcome to the real world.
> a lot of ya'll weren't around and/or dont remember when you had to pay for Microsoft Visual Studios to develop windows apps
As a high schooler, I was developing for Linux. I admittedly had to pay to receive a CD-ROM with my first Linux distro, and by the minute when connecting to the Internet.
> native platforms are vicious nasty bad things, owned by massive terrible companies.
Right, so your experience is iOS, and Android with the Play Store. And then you assume that you know all platforms and can teach people.
> Qt licensing being already on the fence and only a rug-pull away from being a horrible mistake to have built to.
Sure, maybe. Good thing that in 2026 there are so many open source alternatives to build upon.
gemini
gopher obviously.
On the contrary. In a world of spyware stacks controlled by oligarchic corporations, the web is more indispensable than ever.
Except the web is also one of those.
The web is controlled by the W3C, a consortium of different stakeholders including Mozilla. It's as close to a public good as we're going to get. I'm disappointed by the self-defeating cynicism in this thread.
The WHATWG was founded in 2004 and the W3C competed with it for a while before officially forfeiting control over HTML to the WHATWG in 2019.
The WHATWG is just the standards committee of the W3C. Both include Mozilla, a nonprofit that makes an open-source browser. It is incorrect to suggest that the web is somehow a private business.
I'm also disappointed that this forum allows cost-free mindless downvoting, the original sin of toxic social media. Slashdot solved this problem.
I agree that it’s a pile of garbage. Essentially a set of languages and protocols commandeered by corporations for their own benefit and also held back by those same corporations so they have a moat. We’ve gathered around human slop like Javascript and stuck with it “just because”.
Nevertheless here you are.
And yet I bet you would have a hard time spending a day without it. Obviously interacting to this comment would also use the Web.
By the Web we mean apps for Chromium platform? Because good luck implementing the "standards" now and making any new browser.