• Michal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its an additional option for those who prefer a native app. Do you have an issue with it?

    • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, they will shittify their website so that you have to use their app. Then they can collect more data.

      Hate that shit.

    • jcg@halubilo.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t necessarily take issue with the app just for being an app, and it hasn’t come out yet so not like taking issue with it now would be particularly meaningful. If it ends up being worse than the website that’d suck. If they end up making decisions that make the website worse to drive more people to the app, that’d suck too. Though these aren’t things I necessarily think will happen, but I’ve definitely seen it happen way more often than I’d like with websites that go on to create apps. I do think that thinking it’s just “an additional option” is a bit naïve since development resources would go into maintaining it and so naturally there would be an incentive for it to justify that. I just don’t know what form that is, it could just be as benign as “more people will use it if there’s an app.”

      • plantstho@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can collect far more data with an app than with a website because of device permissions APIs. You can then sell that data to advertisers and also use it to train your models.