What?
> That is how the web works.
The web 'experience' has stopped being about fetching static documents in a request/response fashion long ago. Consumers demand rich apps and interactivity, and it appears they're having it their way.
https://github.com/facebook/create-react-app/issues/2398
> Consumers demand rich apps and interactivity
They really don't. That's an assumption without data.
EDIT: see gov.uk. It works quite well without being fancy.
Equating 'create-react-app' package with React is silly. By that logic, I can wrap $library_of_your_choice in scaffolding and then blame it for the bloat I've chosen to add.
> EDIT: see gov.uk. It works quite well without being fancy.
We're at an impasse, since you countered my 'assumption without data' with your 'one-off anecdotal evidence'
no consumer ever demanded the web to be like an app. this is marketing baloney crap. stop treating humans browsing the web as targets for advertisement and consumerism.
For-profit companies typically build toward what they believe is in-demand and will be well-received by consumers. They perform market analysis to reinforce their intuition. Sometimes they get it right and their stock goes up.
There isn't some elaborate plot on the part of Google, nor are 'they' purposely making something 'no consumer ever demanded.' When they do this, the endeavor fails and we call it a flop.
They never show an actually alternative version. A/B or bandit testing doesn't cover a comparison between, say, a nicely designed, very fast, non-tracking, but less interactive version, or a slow, but full-fledged "app".
There used to be mobile versions accessible from desktop (twitter, facebook, etc), but not any more without faking the user agent. Those are significantly lighter, than desktop versions, but there is no way to actually compare the two for the generic public, and companies don't seem to be brave enough to really dig into these questions.
This is the comparison I miss.
Hence my wording: assumption.