ChrislyBear@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And furthermore: Most of these shitty apps are nothing more than overblown API clients. Which means they didn’t want to build a website and operate a webserver, so instead you provide the processing power for the UI yourself. These apps usually can’t do anything on their own, if you are offline, becaue all the value is generated remotely by the actual server.
The modern software experience sucks much!
marius851000@lemmy.mariusdavid.fr 1 year ago
When you have a website, you also provide the processing power for executing JavaScript and rendering HTML+CSS.
Why they would prefer an app (that’s by definition less compatible) is unknown for me, but I can attempt to guess it’s simpler for some reason.
Username@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
It’s about control. Websites cannot control the browser or browser addons. The browser makes it harder to track and control the user. An app by definition allows more hardware access, even if modern mobile OS can control it pretty good. But then again, most users allow everything anyways.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
It’s not control as in “track and control the user”. It’s control as in “normalising the environment”… if the user can install your app then they can use your service - it’s not a weird issue with a browser add on or cookie or whatever.
tabular@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If it’s proprietary then you can’t confirm what it’s actually doing or change it. Even if the uni has no intentions of being controlling they have unjust control of your computing.
Serinus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Browsers work just fine. The add-ons they don’t like are the privacy ones.
They want your data.