The article is a reminder that the “mobile‑first” hype never really went away – most services still use dark patterns to get us to install their native app even when their mobile site works fine. Web apps are sandboxed; apart from cookies and basic fingerprinting, a site can’t do much unless you explicitly upload data. Native apps, by design, integrate deeply with the OS. They ask to read your contacts, track your precise location and movement, access your microphone and see what other apps are installed. Once granted, that permission often provides a “treasure trove of information and control” – and there’s no easy way to claw that data back.
However, it isn’t just greed. Native apps still have advantages the article glosses over: offline support, richer push‑notification APIs and OS‑level integration all contribute to better retention and engagement – the first HN commenter notes that their mobile traffic shifted to the app almost immediately after they released one, despite offering the same functionality on the web. Users also perceive mobile browsers as slow and bloated, which is partly because platform gatekeepers have dragged their feet on enabling powerful web features (service workers, better APIs) and have financial incentives to collect their 30% cut via app stores. Regulation like the EU’s Digital Markets Act may help level the playing field, but today the trade‑off is real: if you want privacy and control, stick with the website – just remember that websites can track you too.