>I guess they just added a web client, which absolutely no one needs, that probably cost a pretty penny.

I'd argue the opposite, they absolutely need a web client, as Grindr (and Scruff) are getting their lunch eaten by a new Seattle-based competitor that has no app store presence and fully embraces the freedoms that come with that, and is cheaper to boot.

That Seattle based startup has also had some pretty damning security issues that, afaik have never been acknowledged publicly.

Maybe I should do a write up about my experience getting IPs, hashed passwords and even moderation action notes blasted at me.

I'm unfamiliar with their issues and that is pretty damning, however, it's become clear that a web-based app that isn't bound by draconian puritan values is turning up the heat on them. Scruff has recently launched a web-based app separate from their main one as well.

Oh I agree. Web based is 100% the way forward with this type of app.

For some more details, they use a websocket for basically all interactions on the app, such as messages, online status, etc. They were blasting internal data into that websocket for some cases, which included IPs, Hashed and salted passwords, the salts for said passwords, user reports, private photos, emails... and a lot more such as ISP, user agent and verification codes.

What Seattle-based startup are you all cryptically referring to?

Sniffies. It’s far better than Grindr in almost every way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniffies

I tried it out, it is a very different app from Grindr and despite the very low floor I’m not sure I agree it is better. Totally disrespectful of the web platform and the UX is not great. But if you are looking for quick and/or anonymous sex exclusively it appears to be best of breed.

I’m not familiar with web platforms. Would you be willing to share what you mean about it being disrespectful of it?

Sniffies. Don't open it at work.

But if you have a web client and app store apps, which are frontends to the same thing, doesn't that mean that your site is still constrained by the app store rules?

Less data can be grabbed from a web app, which is better for users.

Less apps going through the app store ecosystem means 30% lower rents if you can divorce the app store billing, which is better for the company.

I imagine a future where the webapp installs a PWA to mitigate the rent-seeking app stores. But I am sure the app stores would insert a clause preventing a "lite" version of PWA's to be installed.

Major caveat being Grindr’s new web app makes it significantly more easy to download high resolution images/videos (using browser extensions) from disappearing messages and ‘private’ albums shared with you. On the app at least they block screenshots and screen recording.

Of course don’t share what you wouldn’t want copied. However, the false sense of security they communicate to the average non-technical user about their ‘privacy’ features like disappearing photos and locked albums is quite disingenuous and harmful.

Interesting, thanks

The price of all the dating apps are like that now. At least in Canada, Tinder Gold is $40/month and Platinum is $54/month.

On the contrary, I'd argue a web client is important for a number of reasons. Many apps, such as Instagram, aren't properly supported on iPadOS. In this case, a web client neatly solves various usability, window management, and accessibility issues.

This sounds like the expired beer of dating apps.